



% 









V * ^ -J 



* *o 




4<fc 




jP-^ 












VV 







iV«* 



•• **' ** 
























• A>*x- 



>.tftoX 







a9 .»i£> *> 








W 









*W *bv* 






♦ «0 ^ 


















\/ 



IV- 






c 

°^/ :»&•. V n , c .•SA& %,/ : ^fte;-. V , c .-^U 




«5^ 




■jk AT *Jiu«/irw* "^ V *■ U Z* ^l*. A> 



',>V 






j CpV 






y^ °»w^' f /% •-^••y% °^-,/% 









;* rt o 








CT 6 o - • • **b a* . l " « ^ 

^ < 



w .*m\ %<♦♦ smfc-. V* 






bV* 






t * v * 



«5 ^ 

V •!"•- 9^ a0 v ••!!/♦ > V % 







'A ^ 



r oK 






r^ . o - • 





^ ^ : 




«^% %„,/ :StbL\ %S :'£iA°* %„</ :0b[\ \S : 







V^ 1 



;• / ^ •-« 

0° . 6 ^I' °o 



ADDRESS 



OP THE 



ACEDON CONVENTION 



B* 



WILLIAM GO O DELL; 



.VN» 



LETTERS 



01? 



I T S'f IT I 



ALBANY: 
S W. GREEN, PATRIOT OFFICE 

13 4 7. 






H 



if 






I°i 



oD 



ADDRESS 

Of the Nation ii Nominating Convention, assembled at MaceJon Lock, 
Wayne county, in the Stat<& of New-York, June 8th, 9th, and 10th, 1847. 



INTRODUCTION. 

To the Friends of Liberty, Justice, and Good\ 
Gatpernment In the United States: i 

We take the liberty to ailress you in respect to the 
ODjccts we have in view, in convening together and 1 
nominating- candidates for ."resident and' Vice-President | 
ol the United States, 'i hose ob jects are not partizan in 
the ordinary acceptation of that term. We have no in- ' 
terests to promote distinst from the interests of each 
and all of oar fellow-citizens. We espouse no other 1 
principles of government than those which our entire 
nation has declared to be self-evident. We only ash 
tnat the rights of all shall be equally ami impartially I 
protected— that the fundamental and acknowledged I 
principles of civil government shall be, at all times, on ! 
all occasions, every where, and in every direction, an- j 
plied and carried out into consistent and Unde viatiiU 
practice. If there are some who solicit your aid in 
protecting the rights of the white man— and if there are '<• 
others who ask you to assist them in protecting the' 
rights of me colored man, we agree with them bodi, anil 
we differ from them both, in desiring you to co-operate 
with us in securing the equal protection of the rightsof i 
all men. it there are some who wish to enlist you in I 
a political contest against \w form of injustice an i on- I 
pression-if there are others who would have you com- 1 
nine against another form of injustice and of opprfe- 
won, or another, or yet another, we agree with them" 
.ill, and we differ from them all, in asking you to : 
assist asm securing an administration of government 
that shall protect ai] its subjects alike, from all forms of] 
££*! *t ¥r oppression, so far as civil government 
can applj the remedy, in the appropriate exercise of its | 
characteristic powers. 

In the '-Declaration-' connected with the Call for 
the assembling of this Convention, our principles and 
measures, wnh the special occasions forour>esent ac- 
Uon, are set forth in detail, and we refer to that paper 
for a more full statement of them than we have room 
here to repeat. A brief outline of them, we will, how- 
ever, sketch, preparatory to some further statements of 

• COnsiaeratl0l » 9 by which our course has been deter - 

' Civil Government we understand to be that degree 
and description of authoritative control which the Com- 
mon Father of all men has committed to society, to be 
exercised, in accordance with equity and justice, over 
lt C ,H ° ne ,'i itS , memb « 9 3 for the protection of all and of 
each, m the safe possession and full enjovment and use 
rii« i tn . eir .?"ff 1 na» and heaven-conferred rights unim- 
paired; forbidding nothing but the infringement of those 
Mghts, ami requiring and enforcing nothing but what is 
requeue for their protection and enjoyment. 

Assuming, as it does, the essential equality of all, andi 
being committed to all, it imposes equal restraints upon 
ail, ami aourds equal and impartial protection for all. i 
rV™ C °P lzes "° cas ' e - ll knowsno distinction of b'rth, I 
property, nativity, avocation, condition or color. It 
punishes nothing but crime. It infringes no original, 
natural rights. It permits no such infringement, it; 
"f r , ^ niz f s 1 n _ , m an's right to infringe the equal rights! 
ol his neighbor. It creates and allows no monopolies, j 
fram " "? 1 * 1CCI J U ^ V « privileges. It has no power to ' 
i. . ame a \ alid and binding law that vioiat *s any original '• 
i ght, or conflicts with natural equity and justice. And I 
an us courts, magistrates and jurors are bound to consi- 
der an legislative enactments or judicial precedents or! 
void* 58 ' w ' hlch are contrary to natural justice, null and! 

.iJ^t 1 ^ s!avei, yto be illegal and unconstitutional,! 
ana Unuihe Federal Government is oound to secure its; 



abolition by the guaranty, to every State in this Union, 
of a republican form of government. If the South de- 
murs, let her, peacefully, withdraw from the Union. 

We demand, for the injured aborigines of this coun- 
try, the same protection, mercy and justice (hat we de- 
mand for the injured slave. 

We go for the repeal of all tariffs, whether for pro- 
tection or revenue, the support of the government by 
direct taxes, the consequent diminution of the revenue, 
the reirenchment of expenses, the reduction of salaries, 
the abolition of unnecessary offices, and of the w^hole 
naval and military establishment, the prompt abandon- 
ment^ the present wicked war with Mexico, the res- 
toration of her conquered territory, including Texas, 
and ample remuneration for the wrongs we have inflict- 
ed upon her. 

Along with the abolition of all other monopolies, we 
would restrict within reasonable boun Is, the extent to 
which individuals, corporation', or the government, 
should hold properly in land, providing an oppi>rlunity 
for all to become possessors of the soil, and thus enjoy 
(without its being contested) the original right of every 
human being to occupy a portion of the earths surface, 
and breathe its free air. To this end, we would also 
have the public lands thrown open to actual settlers, 
free of cost, and every man's homestead held inaliena- 
ble, except with his own consent, not being liable to 
seizure and sale for debt. 

We would abolish the Post Office monopolv, allow- 
ing citizens to exercise the original right of transport- 
ing letters and newspapers, as well as other freight. If 
the government cannot compete wish them, let it dis- 
continue the business, or if it chooses to run mails at 
the. public expense, let all who use the mail pay equally 
at a cheap rate, for its use, without privilege of frank- 
ing. 

We would confer office on no slaveholders or mem- 
bers of pro-slavery bodies, political or ecclesiastical — 
on no venders of strong drink or advocates for the li- 
cense of that traffic — on no members of secret societies 
— and on no persons known to be immoral, unjust, dis- 
honest, or i by position or principle) in a state of hostil- 
ity to the essential elements and conditions of civil, po- 
litical and religious freedom. 

APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES A DUTY. 
It is now nearly two years since this general outline 
ol political principles and measures was definitely pro- 
posed by some of us, as a basis of associated political 
action, believing as we then did and stilt do, that the 
Liberty party, to which we belonged, was not only 
pledged to those general principles, but was also pled- 
ged, by its own original and oft-repeated promises, to 
apply those principles to all public questions, as the ap- 
propriate occasions should arise for their application. 
During the period that has intervened, although strong 
exceptions have been taken, and determined opposition 
manifested, to the course we had proposed, we have 
found no antagonists who have been willing to join is- 
sue with us on the moral question involved, whetner the 
action proposed is, or is not, in accordance with the 
riglii and the true in the abstract. No one offers to show 
us, an.t few, if any, are prepared to athrm, that our prin- 
ciples and our measures are not right, EojpitAbi-E «d 
just. Our principles are the professed creed of the 
nation. They are loudly insisted on by Abolitionists in 
general, and by Liberty party men in particular. And 
not the first man among them has attempted to prove 
that the measures we propose are not legitimate deduc- 
tions from those principles; that our application of 
them is not appropriate and proper, or that there is not. 
Occasion, in consequence of existing wrongs, that a re- 
medy should be applied. It is almost universally ad- 



mitted by them, as well is >; i large portion of the ' 

community in general, that the wrongs we have enu- I 
meraled are evils, anil that it is desirable that they 
.should he removed. Abolitionists in general, and Lib- 
erty party men in particular] hare been accustomed to 
maintain, moreover, that it is always safe to do right, and 
safe as well as obligatory to do right at the present time 
—that it is morally wrong to defer doing right, — and 1 
that it is holding "the truth in unrighteousness to ac- j ; 
knowledge a truth in the abstract, and yet decline, on \ 
prudential Considerations, reducing that truth to prac- 
tice. On this ground it is, that Abolitionists persist in 
applying the epithet pro-slaves* to that portion of 
the community, who. while they acknowledge the 1 
moral wrong of slavery, excuse themselves on the 
ground of expediency, from reducing their convictions 
to practice, in the bestowment of their \ ptes. 

We cannot perceive why we are not bound to reason 
in the same manner and to act in accordance with ihe 
same considerations in respect to all other moral evils 
within the admitted sphere and pro\ ince of political ac- 
tion. Admitting that chatted slavery is the greatest' 
moral and political evil upheld and sanctioned by the ll 
government, (though the moral and political evils of 
intemperance are scarcely less,) we cannot feel our- 
selves, as moral and accountable beings, at liberty to i 
undertake the mensuration and guaging of the moral j : 
and political evils upheld by the government, with a 
view of ascertaining which is greatest, and thus deter- J 
mining which moral evil we will select as our antago- 
nist, and which we will enter into a truce with, at I 
present, and. virtually support, by not making opposi- 
tion to it a test, in tiie bestowment of our votes. If 
those who wish to oppose, at the ballot-box, the licen- I 
sing of the sale of intoxicating liquor.-, or the enact-! 
ment of certain unjust and wicked laws which oppress 
the poor white man, may not for such objects, without 
moral wrong, and without becoming justly obnoxious 
to the charge of being pro-slavery, hold in abeyance ' 
their anti-slavery convictions and sympathies, bestow- j 
ing their voles on pro-slavery law-makers, for the 
sake of preventing ruin licenses and the enactment of I 
unjust laws for oppressing poor white men, then we 
cannot see how, without moral wrong, we can hold in 
abeyance our temperance principles, or our convictions 
of the moral wrongfulness of corn laws, cloth laws, and 
other legislative devices for grinding the face of the 
poor, in order to bestow our votes on the opposers of 1 
chattel enslavement. Nor do we See the necessity, or 
the good policy of so doing. The most trustworthy 
opponents of chattel enslavement — indeed the only 
really trustworthy ones — me those whose opposition is ! 
founded on fixed moral principle, and impelled by sim- 
pie-hearted benevolence and good will to mankind— I 
men who are opposed to chattel enslavement, because 
it is morally wrong and inhuman, who are therefore 
opposed to rum-licenses, and to all other wicked and 
unjust acts of legislation, because they too are morally 
wrong and inhuman — men who will not stifle, nor com- 
promise, nor hold in abeyance their moral convictions, 
either in the one rase or in the other. To do other- 
wise would be choosing between the least of two 
moral evils,. consenting to the .me. but opposing the I 
other, which we hold to be moral!) wrong, whether 
we select one or the other of the two moral evils for 
our antagonist. 

To co-operate with a political part) thai refuses to 
array itself against any of the wicked and unjust acts of j 
the go\ ernmenl except chattel -lav ery, would be choos- : 
ing the least of two moral evils. Vnd we can perceive | 
notiiing more sagacious or more Christian like, in tins 
process of choosing the least of two moral evils, than 
in the similar process of those whose political act inn, 
in their own apprehension, might be directed to t ie re- 
moval of all unjust and wicked legislation, exeept the 
legalizing of slavery. On the one hand, it might be 
pleaded that slavery is only on i* evil, and impossible, 
it present to be removed, so long... other similar and 
numerous evils are I <■ 1 1 to support if, while these are) 
not too inveterate to be removed in detail, in the first 
place, thus preparing the way tor the accomplishing of 
the more difficult task - afterwards. On the other hand 
it might be pleaded, as indeed it is, that slavery is the 
greatest evil, the promoter, if not the source oi all the 
i-e.si j d, u i ii )a ll,,. dictate of w isdom to unite our ener- 
gies against this in the firs! place, and leave the rest to 

be attended to afterwards. It concerns us not to say 
which of these rival methods is marked with the great- 
est degree of falsehood ami error. In neither of them ; 
can we discover the marks ol '.rue wisdom. Iloth nie- 



thods we reject as contrary to true philosophy, sound 
morals, and practical good sense. The proclamation of 
neutrality in respect to one or mure moral ev ils, amoun • 
ting to a truce with them, and a co-operation with their 
supporters, is but a lame preparation for an onset with 
another moral evil, admitting it to be the. parent and 
chief support of all the others. Such a policy resem- 
bles too closely — nay, is it not in substance, a proposi 
tion to enter into an alliance, offensive and defensive, 
with aii. the lesser devils of the pit, in the hope of de- 
coying them into a successful campaign against the 
Prince and Father of them all? The friends of tempe- 
rance were thus seduced, for a time, to hold a truce 
with the lesser demons of inebriation, the wine, the 
beer, and the cider, while they concentrated their en- 
ergies against the Giant Fiend, Distilled Spirit. The 
result proved that a truce with the subalterns and pri- 
vates of the army of intemperance, was a truce with 
the Commander-in-Chief of that army himself, and the 
World's history fails to furnish us with any other in- 
stance of better success in the attempt to east out the 
Prince of the Devils by a truce or co-operation with 
his legions. 

LAW OF FREE TRADE VXD INALIENABLE 
HOMESTEAD, \ MORAL LAW . 

It is an easy and cheap mode of argument to assume, 
as is sometimes done, the main point in debate, or 
rather, to assume as (rue, what is commonly admitted, 
in realily r , on both sides, to be false. It is easy to re- 
pvesent, and take for granted, that whereas the slave 
question is a great MORAL question, all the other great 
( t iies ions before the nation, are mere questions oi poli- 
cy, involv ing no moral principles at all. On the ground 
of this assumption, it is easy to represent those who 
occupy the position we have chosen, as lowering down 
or throwing into the shade, a great moral question, for 
t lie sake of settling mere questions of finance, of profit 
and loss, of pecuniary advantage or disadvantage. The 
questions of free trade, of monopolies, of the public 
lands, .'■cc, are treated as being of this character. But 
there is no solid ground for this representation. It 
stands contradicted by the almost universal sentiment 
Thai the law of tree trade is an original law of nature, 
and consequently, a law of God, founded on the origi- 
nal and inalienable right of every man to the products 
of his own labor, including the rijrht to dispose of th*- 
same, wherever he can find a brother man to become 
the free purchaser. All writers of any note on moral 
anl political science and on political economy, who 
have treated of the subject, have assumed this as an 
axiom. Not a work of the kind can be found in our 
Colleges and Seminaries, in which the point is not con- 
ceded or assumed. It is as self-evident as the right of 
self-ownership, of which it. is an essential part. And 
the intelligent advocates of commercial restrictions 
always concede this truth, and admit that free trade is 
right '• in the abstract." Their pleas for international 
tariffs are all founded on the supposed pecuniary advan- 
tages to the country, or to particular portions of its ci- 
tizens under existing circumstances, to be derived from 
certain departures from this law of nature and of God, 
this law of original and " abstract right," especially 
while other nations persist in departing irom it. In a 
word, the plea for human chattelhood and for restric- 
tions on the right of human beings to the free inter- 
change of their products (an essential feature of self- 
ownership) rest on the same basis, viz: the utility of 
impairing man's essential humanity, or crippling its ex- 
ercise; the utility of counteracting the original and 
heaven-established laws of man's social existence and 
moral freedom, under the present circumstances of th>» 
ease. 

If laws sustaining the claim of human chattelhood are 
sinful, because they violate the original law of man'* 
nature; then laws "restricting the free interchange of 
the lawful products of human' industry are likewise sin- 
ful, tor the same reason. 

Similar remarks might be made concerning man's 
righl to occupy a portion Of the earth's surface, and 
the consequent unrighteousness of the legislation and 
the arrangements by which that original and funda- 
mental law of nature' and of nature's God, is contemptu- 
ously set aside. To talk of man's inalienable right 
to self-Ownership, without the right to the products of 
his own Skill and industry— to talk of his right to those 
products without the right to exchange or sell them, 
wherever he can And (he best market — to talk of a man's 
right to si.r.v-ow.N KRsmp without a right to an inch of 
the earth's sod, without a right to bsj in the world 



where he was born, is to talk self-contradiction and 

ttonsenee; for the right of self-ownership includes or 
implies the right of existence, of soil, and of free in- 
tercourse. Whoever succeeds in proving that the legal 
sanction of an unlimited land monopoly, and that com- 
mercial restrictions, are morally right, will have done 
more than the slaveholders anil their apologists ha\e 
eTer yet been able to do, towards proving that chattel 
enslavement is no 1 essentially and inherently wicked. 
That man's claim to '.he rijrht of self-ownership must 
he in a sad predicament, who has neither a right to be 
nor to A) — to exercise Wis faculties or to occupy space! 
The principle of illimitable land ownership, if admit- 
ted, covers the one predicament — the principle of com- 
mercial restrictions the other. Tf one white man, or if 
fifty, or if two hundred, may own all the soil of the 
slave States, what becomes of the colored man's right 
to freedom in the land of his birth, for which Aboli- 
tionists have so long contended? And if, m addition to 
this, the government may restrict commercial inter- 
course by a tariff, (if it has this right, it has it, at dis- 
cretion and without bounds.) then it may prohibit, and 
not merely cripple, the commercial intercourse of the 
laboring population with the rest of the world, and 
render labor unavailing for lis great ends. The 
mockery of a nominal self-ownership is all that then 
■lands between them and their re-enslavement, in case 
they had been previously enfranchised. This very po- 
sition, according to the most reliable information, is 
already coming to be recognized as the present lot of 
the lately emancipated slaves in the British West 
Indies. 

THE BIBLE vs. CLASS LEGISLATION. 

Those who draw nice moral distinctions between 
different modes of oppression — who insist that no moral 
rttestion is involved in any of the class legislations and 
monopolies of modern times, except chattel enslave- 
ment, and who therefore insist on our confining our 
political action to that one form of oppression alone, 
proclaiming our neutrality in respect to all others must, 
find some other code of morals than that found in the 
Bible, for the guidance of their conduct, some other 
directory for the adjustment of their measures. They 
must leave off citing the requirements and the denuncia- 
tion- of that Sacred Book as freely as they have been 
afceustomed to do, as appropriate to the position they 
Occupy. Very little of what is there said against op- 
pression, against oppressive governments, of the duty of 
the people and of their rulers to execute judgment and 
deliver the spoiled ou: of the hands of the oppress >r. 
to cry aloud and spare not, to undo the heavy bur- 
dens;— very little of all this language was originally 
uttered in direct reference to chattel enslavement in 
any modern sense of the term. It was directed against 
minor oppressions, such as those that we are now invited 
to pa=s over without noticing, to be neutral about, nay, 
to support, by the bestowment of our votes upon their 
apologists and advo :ates! When our Saviour upbraided 
the Pharisees with binding heavy burdens, gri 
to be borne, laying them on men's shoulders, and not 
touching them with one of their fingers, he made no 
direct and immediate allusion to chattel enslavement. 
Of that degree of barbarity they could not be charged, 
for they held no slaves, and voted for no slavehol 
Such a climax of impiety they never reached. They 
only devoured the homes of the widows, not the widows 
themselves. They resembled those who, according- to 
some of our modern teachers, oki v take away their 
Clothing from the poor, depriving them of comfortable 
shelter from the cold, and who therefore, are to be let 
alone, in consideration of the fact that the "cloak is of 
less value than the man," and under the motto of "the 
man first and the cloak afterwards!'' Was there, there- 
fore) no moral principle involved? Are we indeed to 
proclaim impunity to tie plunderers of cloaks, the 
stealers of sheep, and the mere robbers of the poor, 
because there are men-thieves yet in the land? Or 
shall we not rather claim " the man and his cloak !— the 
cloak because of the man that raqst suffer without it?" 
The humanity that begins by yielding up to the robber 
the poor man's cloak as a price of the robber's co-ope- 
ration against the man-stealer, will be likely to end in 
a compromise with the man-thief himself, for a 
of wool. The experiment has proved it so in our own 
land. He only who is faithful in the least can be 
trusted in much; while he who, when he saw s. cloak - 
thief, consented with him, is in a fair way to become 
an accomplice of ma-ft-thieves, in the end. 

The terrible overthrow cf Pharaoh and his host-- in 



) the Red Sea. was not for the sin of chattel enslavement. 
The Hebrews were never held as chattels. They were 
never forbidden to marry or to read. Their families 
1 were never separated by sale, like brute beasts. Yet 
j they were grievouslj oppressed. A land, monopoly 
had perpetuated the right of the soil in the royal family 
of the reigning dynasty. An onerous tax upon the pro- 
j vince of Gbsheh, payable in brick (and for "revenue 
purposes'' anil "internal improvements 1 ? doubtless) 
had been imposed and lev ied, about as burihensome, we 
may suppose, as that similar tax, payable in c itiee the 
almost entire product of the island) which the Dutch 
Government of India now levies upon the natives of 
j Java — "a mere financial measure,'' of course! fA 
'"'mere question of dollar.-, atid cents! 1 ' us the slave 
question is with the slaveholders!] To this was added 
1 at length, a prohibition (by tariffpr otherwise) of the 
neci ssary supplies of straw for the brick-makers! The 
of these measures combined, including the 
limited and temporary slang! tor of the Hebrew male 
| children, must have beti Less terrible than the oppres- 
sions of the British Government in famishing Ireland; 
I for, at the termination of their bondage, the Hebrews, 
[ so far from being in a starring condition, like the peo- 
ple of Ireland, or penniless, like the tariff-scourged 
\ operatives of Manchester, Birmingham, and some dis- 
tricts already, even of our own country, were rich in 
the possession of Hocks and herds! 

Bui, in the oppression of the Hebrews in Egypt, was 

there "no moral principle involved" because it was 

■•a mere measure of political economy and of finance?" 

So Vtoses and Aaron, as well as Pharaoh and his states- 

j men, might have concluded, had they been privileged 

! to listen confidingly, to our modern teachers, who could 

have instructed them that the. heaven-imposed duty of 

| delivering the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor 

• was all comprised in the "one iaea" of securing them 

from chattel enslavement! The mystery of Pharaoh's 

1 hardening his heart, were readily solved, might we 

[ suppose him to have listened to such teachings! The 

terrible overthrow of that great financier and political 

I economist, with the deluded people whq supported him, 

| the Bible records as a striking specimen of the Divine 

displeasure against oppressive governments, and those 

who voluntarily support them in their oppressions. 

i The "one idea" it inculcates in respect to this subject 

j is "total abstinence" from all forms of oppression; the 

: immediate abolition of all enactments sustaining them, 

ALL DUTlEs, ALIKE OBLIGATORY. 
This notion that men have a moral right to select one 
j field of moral, religious or benevolent effort, and on the 
ground of their activity in that department, withdraw 
J themselves from open public sympathy and co-operation 
in other fields of moral, religious, orbenevolent effort — 
I that they may be neutral in respect to the existence of 
■ one class of mora! evils, because they have concluded 
! it best to expend all their energies against another class 
! of moral evils, is one of the most subtle, delusive and 
mischievous of all the devices of xhp- Arch Tempter. 
i All men imagine they are. discharging some of their 
! duties, and most men think they are very faithful in the 
i discharge of the duties they have selected as the most 
; incumbent upon them, in the position they occupy. To 
j take care of himself and his family, is the grand idea 
j of duty with the sordid worldling. When other duties 
j to God and mankind, growing out of other relations, are 
urged upon his attention, he is too much engrossed with 
i his "one idea," to give heed. One man is very earnest 
j against prodigality— that is his "one idea," — do not ask 
him to beware of penuriousness. Another is absorbed 
with the "one idea" of generosity — do not expect the vir- 
j tue of frugality in him. He is occupied with his beau ideal 
: of moral excellence. One man is strongly opposed to 
' intemperance, and has he not a right to be neutral in 
f respect to the vice of gambling? Highway robbers 
[have plumed themselves' on their almsgiving; and the 
! man that bolts his door upon the houseless, thanks God 
that he has never defrauded any one. The very worst 
| of men have selected something g-ood, in which they 
may glory, and few are so abandoned as not to congratu- 
late themselves that the some others. 
Precisely upon thisprineipletbe slaveholder claims the 
praise of hospitality and other kindred virtues, and bias 
defiance to the reprovers of his injustice. 

Very much On the same principle do men of high 
professions in morality and religion, excuse '.heir mani- 
fest delinquencies. The Missionary Board is absorbed 
in its "one idea" of sending the gospel to iheheathen; 
the Bible Society with i Bibles; 



—each has staked out his ground. Dj not ask them to 
consider what the gospel is, or how or by whom it is 
to be taught— nor where the heathen are to be tound— 
nor whether slaves are to be furnished with Bibles or 
no The Moral Reform Society is occupied with the 
seventh commandment; do not ask its attention to the 
eJo-hth— nor point its lecturers and writers to the great 
national brothel of slavery. It cannot turn aside from 
its erreat "one idea" of moral purity, to raqu.re how 
it is violated. The man who devotes his time to the 
Temperance Society, in like manner, imagines it will 
not do for him to espouse the cause of the enslaved, lest 
he should forfeit his influence in the temperance cause. 
The Ministrv must " know nothing but Christ and him 
ciucified" do not inquire of them what was Christ's 
mission o'n the earth, nor how he fulfilled it— how he 
treated oppressors, or how he was treated by them. 
The. Church must promote religion, and cannot stop to 
define what pure and undeftied religion is. All this 
comes of an imaginary devotedness to some great "one 
idea/' without understanding distinctly and fully what 
thal'id°a is— how much it includes, ami with what it is 
indissolubly allied. Political activity follows in the 
same track, ana builds, unceasingly, and every where, 
its forever unbuilt edifice, by laying its "stones ot 
emptness " and " stretching out upon it the line of con- 
fusion." One party has its " one idea » of this measure 
—another of that— but none of them embracing the 
"one idea 1 ' of a just government. One has its one 
ide~ of white men's liberty, another its one idea o( 
colored metis enfranchisement— some are for removing 
on» evil and another another, but none are for removing 
all, and, consequently, all continue to receive the sup- 
port of the majority, and none are removed! 

INEFFICIENCY OF VOLUNTARY. OR « ONE 

IDEA"' SOCIEIT'ES. 
1* may be admitted that voluntary societies, selecting 
one distinct ob : ect,have been productive of some bene- 
fits We do not allege that it is morally wrong to or- 
ganize such societies, for the man that co-operates with 
one of them for the promotion of one good object, may 
at the same time, co-operate with another of them for 
another, and thus discharge in one, the obligations not 
discharged in the other. In supporting one ol these so- 
cieties, while its aflairs are properly conducted, we do 
not necessarily neglect, much less oppose, any other 
«-ood object. The case differs when, m attempting the 
promotion of one goad object, a society loses sight of 
those moral affinities that bind together all good 1 enter- 
prises and violates one class of obligations lor the sake 
of discharging another. Thus a society that sanctions 
caste, in Older to circulate Bibles, or that lends its sanc- 
tion to slavery, in order to extend missions— or that 
thinks to convert the world without opposing all the 
world's vices— or that, in attempting to oppose licen- 
tiousness, is careful to take no notice of its strongest 
and deepest and most wide-spread entrenchments,— such 
societies, very evidently, while thus conduced, no 
only become the opponents of other good objects, but 
fail of fidelity to' their own special trusts. An aboli- 
tions' that should content himself with that one depart- 
ment of benevolent or reformatory ellort— an AnM-Ma- 
verv Society that should violate one class of moral obli- 
gations, in order to discharge another class r that should 
Fead its members into a truce with other vices, and es- 
pecially with other forms of oppression, as a means of 
abolishing chattel slavery, would become equally re- 
prehensible, and undeserving of the public confidence. 
"\Ve call attention to these plain considerations, in or- 
der to meet an objection against the course we propose, 
founded on the supposed teachings of experience in the 
uoc of our modern voluntary associations. W e are ad- 
i ned to * ike them as our models, and are particu- 
larly referred to the supposed secret of their efficiency, 
in the strictness with which they have confined them- 
selvc* exclusively to one definite and distinct object; 
and because the Temperance Societies have done 
by confining their attention to one distinct thing, we 
are t cal party, to be efficient, must pur- 

sue a similar course. /-,!„„ «»*« 

To this argument we answer, in the first place, that 

the 

short of iu on that they have i 

bee:i in the b. il ma iner, and thai th< 

•,een greater, had the;. 

■■ 
move. The Temperance enti rprise, as already < 

and effort within narrower bounds than 
maaded. The Missionary Society, too, in the 



I] manner, has made still worse shipwreck by too limited 
] and technical a definition of its object. Scarcely a vol- 
' untary association can be mentioned, that has not fallen 
i more or less into the same error, the present effect of 
J i which is sufficiently visible in their mutual rivalries 
|! and recriminations, and still more, in their ail coming 
|| to a dead stand. The most experienced and obser\ ing 
! men connected with those enterprises, to a great extent, 
| are coming to look upon them as having passed their 
i! meridian, at least in their present shape, and partly be- 
ll cause each one of them finds its wheels blocked by ob - 
|j stacles which the original plan of the society doe> not 
I permit it to touch or to remove, and any thing like co- 
operation or mutual assistance, is, of course, out of the 
question, for the same reason. The Bible Society can- 
not assist the Abolitionist;, in giving Bibles to the 
slaves, because the Bible Society cannot go beyond its 
"one idea," as it would do, should it commit itself on 
the slave question. The Moral Reform Society, for the 
| same reason, must make little or no allusion to the sys- • 
j tern of southern prostitution. The Temperance Society 
| can have nothing to say of the theatres, gambling hou- 
; ses, and brothels, and licentious fashionable literature, 
I that lead so many thousands to intemperance. And the 
j Anti-Slavery Society can say nothing of any of the nu- 
! merous systems of despotism and oppression by which 
, the slave system is supported, and which it wields at 
I pleasure, because each one of these falls short of "chat* 
I'tel" enslavement, and is not embraced in its 
jl idea." And not a few of t^ese obstacles in the way 'jf 
Hall our benevolent and reformatory societies have vo 
I particular society devoted to their eradication. We 
have no anti-gambling societies, nor free trade socie- 
ties, and it would be a" hopeless task to attempt organi- 
i zing distinct societies for the removal of all such evils. 
j The Churches, evidently, for the most part, take little 
cognizance of any of them, and (lie car of reformation 
- in • waiting for some unknown power to remove the 
stumbling-blocks out of the v, ay. 

The boasted potency of the " one idea," as commonly 
I understood and' applied, has evidently no adaptation to 
I supply the remedy most needed now. The difficulties 
to be removed have arisen from too rigid an adherence 
to that policy, and whatever may have been its ben- fits 
in the first instance, it is too late in the day, now, after 
| its workings have been tested, to oiler it as the uni- 
! versal panacea for all social evils. For a certain time, 
: and to a certain extent, the experiment may have been 
' a shrewd one. But as it has its limits, so also it has its. 
I date. It may be well, doubtless it is, at the first onset 
| upon any grave abuse or monstrous system of wicked - 
' ness, to isolate it from every thing else, and make it 
1 stand out to view, till all its characteristic features and 
full proportions are seen and understood, as well as that 
mode of exhibition can show them. But before any 
such abuse or system can be fully seen as it is, and es- 
pecially before its props and supports can be detected 
and taken away, it must be considered in its connections 
and its affinities— it must be traced to its strong holds of 
entrenchment; these, too, must be assaulted, and its 
•supplies seized upon and cut off, before it can be finally 
overcome. "Practical men" (as our opponents con- 
sider themselves) ought to understand this. We may- 
venture to predict that before alcoholic intemperance 
can be overcome, some Pttention must be paid to its 
connection with other forms and other agents of in- 
temperance; that bJdore chattel enslavement can b<- 
successfully terminated, other forms of oppression that 
cluster around and support it, must be taken into the 
account, and included in the effort. 

Thus much, in respect to the wordings of the volun- 
tary associations, for benevolent, moral and religious 
purposes, we may venture to say, since their example, 
wilhoul qualification, and in respect to their most ques- 
tionable characteristics, is held up to us as the unerring 
ird. from which it were presumptuous in us, for a 
inch, to diverge. 
Bui we haveastill further answer to the argument 
upon us. Had the example of the voluntary 
associations b< en w vcr so faultli sa- had their su 

at i, factory-had their interpretation 
and use of the "one idea" policy betrayed them into 

inconsistencies, delinquencies and Uisi 
which now, in many instances, mar their history, ami 
crippl ie their character, we 

oto the arena ol . 

cal hi. . r -'" o! thedut,es 

rnment, we 

ther beyond the precii.ts of the mere volun- 

l ita maxims, though never so tauK- 



;ess within their legitimate Held of application, are 
incompetent here, to guide us. The '"one idea*' of the 
seventh commandment may answer lor the Moral lie- 
form Society, but it does not follow that nothing else is 
requisite for the basis of a Christian Church. So the '-'one 
idea" of abolishing- chattel slavery may suffice for the An- 
U-Slavery Society, but we must beg to be excused from 
admitting the inference that all the functions of civil 
government are exercised, and all its obligations dis- 
charged, by the simple abolition of chattel slavery, 
without the redress of any of its other abuses, the repeal 
of any other of its own unjust acts, the repression of any 
other species of crime. Because its penal code should 
prohibit and punish man-stealing, it does not follow that 
it should prohibit and punish nothing else. And just as 
broad and comprehensive as are the functions and 
duties of civil government, just so broad and compre- 
hensive are the duties of free citizens and voters in 
their participation in the acts of the government. And 
just so broad and comprehensive, likewise, are the du- 
ties of any political association of voters and citizens 
uniting together in the nomination and support of all 
the officers by whom the government is to be admin- 
istered. 

Civil government is not a mere voluntary association 
of individuals, at liberty to enter into the engagement 
or not at their pleasure, and giving it a wider or" a nar- 
rower scope at their option. And of course, political 
associations as above described, commonly called polit- 
ical parties, are not mere voluntary associations, at 
liberty to embrace within their objects, as much or as 
iittle as they think proper. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 
Civil government has its foundation in the nature, 
the character, and the necessities of man. Its definition 
and its limits are fixed in the nature of the case, and 
men cannot alter them. Hence civil government has 
its fundamental and fixed principles, the knowledge of 
which is recognized as a science, just as the knowledge 
©f the first principles of chemistry and of astronomy are 
sciences. Man may learn and apply these principles, 
bat he cannot alter, enlarge, or abridge them, (by 
"voluntary associations-' or otherwise,) and it is at the 
peril of all that is precious, beneficial or sacred, in 
civil government, that any body of men permit them- 
selves to tamper with the laws of political science, 
which are God's laws, by any unauthorized and capri- 
cious experiments of the kind. 

" In forming the Liberty party," it is said, " we 
only organized for the sole and simple purpose of ' 
abolishing chattel slavery. We never pledged our- I 
selves to the work of general political reform." The ' 
statement happens to stand contradicted, most explicit- ' 
ly, by all the early documents and doings of the Liberty ' 
El"" y V t ut su PP osin g >t to have been otherwise: what I 
then? In that case the Liberty partv did not corres- I 
pond, m its structure, with the foundation principles of 
civil government; and its organization, however in- 
tended, was a virtual conspiracy against the immutable i 
laws of political science, as impious as it was futile, 
and its prompt abandonment becomes as plain a duty as 
m the case of any other course of wrong-doin"-. The 
ease is not altered, if the Liberty partv, originally or- : 
gamzed (as we claim it to have been) for carrying out, i 
impartially, all the proper objects of civil government, i 
has abanuoned that platform for a narrower one, and, 
will not return to its first position, and redeem the 
pledges it then gave. 

• Is u itf to J? slron S language to say that there is impiety ! | 
mine efiort to obtain the administration of civil °-ov- ,\ 
ernment, that we may wield it solely tor the promotion , 
of one single interest, the redress ofbnly one particular 
wrong, the removal of only one form of oppression? 
¥| hose institution is civil government? By whose au- 
tfcority does ft exist, and by whom are its powers or- i! 
darned? What is the design of that authority, and 1 
what the scope of those powers? 

"He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in ! i 
the fear of God."— "Judges and officers shalt thou make II 
thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God triveth ' 
thee, throughout thy tribes, and they shall judge the 
people with just judgment/-^ "Execute judgment be- 
tween a man and his neighbor."—" Deliver the spoiled 
out of theha>:ds of the oppressor."—" Execute judg- 
ment in the morning," i. e> , timely, ea ut de- 
toy.— "Ye shall do no unrighteousness "in judgment- 
thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor hon- 
or the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt 
thou judge thy neighbor."—" Take heed and do it, for 



■j there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor res- 
pect of persons, nor taking of gifts." 
Thus reads the charter-GoD's constitution of civil 

, government— His definition of the platform and objects 
of a political party. « How readest thou?" Does it 
ook like a permission to do justice to some and with- 
hold justice from others? To single out either the 
rich or the poor, or "the poorest of the poor"— "the 

: great interest of the country" or its minor interests, 
either for protection, or for neglect, or for compromise? 

, Does it look like doing justice to one class of the peo- 

; pie first, "in the morning," and leaving it for future 
decision whether justice shall be done at all to the 
others, afterwards? Like providing just judges for 

i some sections oi the country, and leaving other sec- 

, tions to get along as they can? 

MORALITY OF " ONE IDEAISM." 
It is appalling to witness the inroads made upon the 
consciences and moral sensibilities of men, by the ODe- 
ration of the "one idea" theory, as it is commonly un- 
derstood and applied. "As a Missionary Board," it 
seems, we can take no cognizance of God s command- 
ments, out of the area that we have staked out for our- 
selves and occupied.'-" As Temperance men," we can 
took no farther than "our pledge," whatever it m->y 
be, in avoiding and opposing intemperance 1— To our 
'Anti-Slavery platform," we must welcome everv 
body that cries out lustily against chattel slavery, word- 
wise, tho', at the very next opportunity, the' orator 
may cast his vote for a slaveholder, or for a slavehold- 
er's advocate, and may lend his aid to any other system 
of oppression, without forfeiting his reputation for a 
"great moral reformer."— As "Liberty party men," 
we have no right to inquire further concerning a pro- 
posed candidate for civil office than whether h» can 
pronounce the shibboleth of << immediate emancipa- 
tion. —Whatever moral duty or divine precept is 
urged upon our attention, we have only to ens-once 
i ourselves within the narrow limits of our " one idea " 
I whatever it may be- we have only to say that the dis- 
; tinctive object of our favorite society or organization, 
, or political party, did not include that particular duty 
i or precept, and we make a merit of castin™- it to the 
winds! Just as though we expected to be "judged, at 
h the f st £ nal ward, as members of a Missionary Board, 
j or of a temperance Society, or of an Anti-Slavery so- 
li C , } ~' ^ ?. f a Llbe . rf y P ait 3> and not rather AS MEN, 
' J?-™ , th f. rations, responsibilities and duties of 
|; MEN, attaching to us, not in virtue of our own com- 
pacts, and pledges, and organizations, and platforms, 
j! ail of our own devising, but in consequence of our 
.moral natures, and of the relations which, so long as 
; we remain men, we are obliged, whether we desire it 
j or not, to sustain! 

: If it be said that the duties inappropriate to one, or 
another, or to each and to all of these associations, 
may nevertheless be discharged by us, as individuals, 
in addition to the duties we discharge in our several as- 
sociations; we answer, that this remark cannot be true 
I in respect to the political party we support, if that par- 
I ty proposes any thing short of the discharge oi all our 
; pohticayooligations. We might indeed discharge many 
(thougn not all) of our duties concerning intemperance 
: in our co-operation with a Temperance Society, provi- 
| ded its basis were sufficiently broad for the purpose. 
I \V e might then, perhaps, step into the Anti-slavery so- 
; ciety and do up a part, though not the whole, of our 
j anti-slavery work, there. But we cannot co-operate 
i with an anti-slavery political party confined to the one 
i object of abolishing chattel slavery, and reserve to our- 
; selves the possibility of discharging, in any other man. 
i n . e f' V 1 ^ rcst of our jm P°rtant and heaven-imposed po- 
litical duties. W e have only one vote to bestow, and 
can belong to only one political party. Having de- 
posited our vote for the anti-slavery candidate, there 
is not, and cannot be, another political party into 
which we may step and deposite our vote for the tem- 
perance candidate; and another into which we may 
enter and vote against the iniquities and oppressions of 

a combined revenue and j '• • ; . ; aI ,<i so OIU 

And even if we could, we might only be voting for a 
»f rifl iU ''•'>• s-rid against it in the other 

slavery in the one party and again: other- for 

temperance party an ice in the 

Cher; thus ourselves, and 

nullifying our own vo es. VA hen we vote for a man to 
hola ll elvl ■ '■'•'<' i; ave to vote for the whole man, 

so far at .east as his general character and public acts 
are concerned. En voting for a pro-slavery man we 



cast a pro -slavery vote, though our object in voting 
may be something else; and in voting for a tariff man, 
we vote for a tariff, though our object be something 
else. If slavery and if tariffs are morally wror.sr, we 
can do neither of these things without committing an 
immoral act. That portion of the Liberty party in the 
•State of New- York, who insist that the Liberty party 
is not, and must not become, a party for other purposes 
than the simple abolition of chattel slavery, have been 
compelled, by their Own sense of their political res- 
ponsibilities, "on other subjects, to step occasionally out 
of the Liberty party and vote for the pro-slavery can- 
didates of tile pro-slavery parties, in reference to those 
other objects. Thus in attempting to discharge one 
political obligation, they have violated another. With 
all their devotion to the ••' one idea-' of abolishing chat- 
tel slavery, and in the very moment of repudiating the 
solicitude of Abolitionists for " other and minor ob- 
jects, " they have actually been driven into the position 
of casting pro-slavery votes, for the accomplishment of j 
those " other and minor objects." So that fidelity to 
the cause of the slave is found to require an anti-slave- ' 
ry political party that will provide for the discharge of j 
all our political obligations. 

A POLITICAL PARTY— ITS OBLIGATIONS. 

Let not our position be misunderstood — or mis-stated, I 
as it has been. We do not say that our political party j 
must provide for, or furnish an arena, for the discharge ! 
of all our moral duties. We only say that it must cover 
the ground of all of them that are appropriately politi- 
cal. This is only saying that all our political duties : 
must be discharged. — We do not look to a political ! 
party, nor to political action, nor to civil government, : 
to remove all moral and social evils. Far from it. 
We only look to them to do their proper work, along ' 
with other appropriate moral influences, for securing 
to all men, their original and essential rights. The I 
field, tho' not without well-defined limits, is too broad j 
for any one single political measure — any one legisla- ' 
tive enactment. The most strenuous advocate for the ] 
narrow construction of our "one idea" would hardly! 
venture to affirm, in so many words, that all the moral j 
obligations resting upon our government could he dis- j 
charged and fulfilled by the simple enactment of a 
statute abolishing chattel slavery. — But if the moral j 
responsibilities of the government extend further than I 
that limit, how can it be made to appear that the moral ! 
responsibilities of those who vote and who nominate j 
the officers of the government do not extent farther? 

Will it be said (it has been said) that a political par- | 
ty and an administration abolishing chattel slavery may 
be trusted, without further inquiry, (o execute justice 
in all other respects? As well mi°ht it be affirmed 
that a man guiltless of burglary might therefore be 
safely entrusted with the reins of the government — 
that because a man had never robbed on the highway, 
he was therefore upright enough for a judge, that who- 
ever assists in rescuing a child from the flames, or a 
drowning man from the river, is entitled to implicit 
confidence as tin arbiter between man and man! Let 
'' practical men-' inquire after the facts. The British 
Government that abolished chattel slavery in the" West 
Indies is starving the people of Ireland, is crushing the 
operatnes of Birmingham, is enforcing upon dissenters 
if England the payment of church tithes, is excluding 
large masses of the people from the right of suffrage, 
is building up a bloated aristocracy, is grinding the 
faces of the poor, is consenting to the oppression, by 
tariffs, of the lately emancipated West India negroes, 
ling its aid to the importation <>f Easl India cool- 
it to compete with them, and reduce still lower their 
wages, entailing hopeless destitution upon both negroes 
■ thus reviving, though without chattelhood, 
est po sible resemblanci lave trade! 

If the opponents of chattel slavery in America are 
more comprehensive in their views of human rights, 
let it be shown by their promptly coming up to the po- 
sition to which we invite them! [f they are opposed 
to all • ii as well as the oppression of hu- 

man chatfcelhood, and if lb act against 

both the one and the other, let th », and Bhow 

srity by thi Ir deeds. But if they refust to do 
this when invited to do it— if they pei . iming 

the prh ili th« 

• gisla- 
tioi ■ ■ i 

mid I tnent of the rich, let 

urge, .'. the simp.' ,•• ^cion to 

chattel enslavement is proof positive Uiat tbey may be 



safely entrusted with the protection of human right*, 
The merit of mere opposition to chattel slavery is be- 
coming cheaper than it has been, and will be much 
cheaper still. The time hastens when, (by the eleva- 
tion of a higher moral standard in politics than had be- 
fore been attempted,) politicians of all parties, the most 
sordid and selfish, will be forced to come up, at least, 
as high as the level furnished by the Anti-Slavery So- 
cieties. This they will be glad to do, as a cover to 
their delinquencies in other respects. But the cover- 
in? \vill become too narrow to hide them, and then, the 
mere merit of being anti-slavery, will avail a political 
party about as much as would, at the present time, the 
boast of legislation against sheep-stealing, or the glory 
of selecting candidates unsuspected of robbing hen- 
roosts. Those who rightly estimate and properly feet 
the inexpressible meanness and moral turpitude of baby- 
stealing, should be the last to claim for themselves and 
associates, any high degrees of humanity, moral discern- 
ment, regard to human rights, or competency to the task 
of defining and protecting them, on the mere ground of 
their readiness to treat baby stealing as a penal offence 
—their capacity to distinguish a man from a beast! High 
time were it for American citizens and their political 
parties to set up a higher standard of political trustwor- 
thiness than that which the oppressive British Govern- 
ment may claim. 

When called upon to define the "one idea" to which 
we would render homage, we say that the great, all- 
comprehensive idea, with us, is the idea of pursuing, 
stedfastly and undeviatingly, wherever thev are re- 
vealed to us, the TRUE and the RIGHT. In the de- 
partment of Civil Government and of political respon- 
sibility, it takes the form of "the protection of hu- 
man rights." This one idea we would honor by the 
prompt, impartial, and uniform application of it, to all 
classes of men, and the redress of all the wrongs of 
which Civil Government may take cognizance. With 
moral principle for our foundation and our polar star, 
we hope to shape our measures in accordance with 
them, desiring no other policy than adherence to the 
right. 

PARTIAL REFORMS, BAD POLICY— CASE OF 
BRITISH ABOLITIONISTS. 

Having thus explained and vindicated our moral posi- 
tion, and disclaimed any other policy than morality, we 
might venture to pause. Nevertheless, there are ob- 
jections to our course, predicated on the current notion* 
of policy, which we shall be expected to notice. 

It is objected that only a few will be found ready to 
uniie on so many objects, whereas, by selecting one, 
and that the most prominent, we may secure numbers, 
sufficient to accomplish the object. Then, if we please, 
we may select another, and so on. In confirmation of 
this policy, we are cited not only to the course of Bri- 
tish abolitionists, but of the anti-corn-law league, free 
suffrage movement, anti-s'ate church agitation, &c. &c. 
The leaders of all the s e movements, it is said, were, to 
a great extent, the same persons, but they had the saga- 
city to take one thing at a time, and not load one objeoz 
with the unpopularity (with many persons) of the 
oilier. 

To this we might interpose, as indeed we must do, 
our settled conviction of the immorality of postpone- 
ment, in cases of this kind, where moral principle is in- 
volved, where postponement implies assent to contin- 
ued wrong-doing, and, (through our votes) the active 
support of it, involving a confederacy with one moral 
wrong as an expedient for uprooting another. Admit- 
ting an overruling Providence, and the necessary opera- 
tion of moral causes and effects, the policy of such a 
course becomes too shallow for a moment's scrutiny. 
fjnless by a cunning combination of wrongs we can 
transmute them into right, or get out Of them, (in de- 
spite of the la h - of nature and the intentions of nature's 
God) the beneficial effects of the right] all such expedi- 
ents must faij us, substantially, and in the Ion? run. Ap- 
parent, temporary and partial benefits are all that we 
can reasonably expect, if there be any thing deserving 
the names ot moral and political science. An alchy- 
mist of the middle ::;rcs mightblunder upon afavorable 
experiment. But as there was no science to guide him, 
80 there could be no skill in his process, and no sagaci- 

fy in bis -i. 

But let us e^ amine the results of the sagacity so con- 

ipounded to us. Which of the desired ob- 

een accomplished f Is free sutlraffe secured? 

No After an expensive agitation* without perceptible 

progress, the enterprise Beems either abandoned, Ofy 



for the present, suspended, to be resumed, if ever, un- 
der the disadvantage of the precedent of the recent fail- 
ure and relinquishment. Is ihe Union of Church and 
State overthrown? No. That is the present topic of 
agitation. The discussion is apparently doing some 
good. Whether the present mode of operation will 
come to any thing more than to convince those con- 
cerned in it of the necessity of a better one, remains to 
be seen. Recent action in Parliament shows that the 
administration do not fear it. They expect it to follow 
the fate of the free sufirage movement, and their jour- 
nalists amuse themselves with speculations as to what 
temporary agitation will come up next. The leaders 
of the anti-state church movement are evidently look- 
ing for no very speedy success. But the corn-laws are 
repealed. Yes! The potato rot, and Irish starvation 
did that, with little if any assistance from the "league." 
But neither the one nor the other has restored the 
right of free trade. Slavery, (that is, chattelhood,) is 
abolished in the Colonies. Yes. Let the Abolitionists 
have due credit for that. The Government deserve 
little, of course. But let us take a nearer view, and 
see whether British abolitionists would not have been 
more sagacious, if they had looked further than they did. 
They stipulated only for the abolition of chattelhood. 
Further than that they asked nothing. The emancipa- 
ted peasantry were thrown upon the mercy of the Colo- 
nial Legislatures, with no Parliamentary restrictions 
upon their class legislations. And now for the result. 
The compromise by which the planters received an un- 
righteous compensation of 20 millions of pounds sterling, 
wrung from the oppressed poor of England, tended to 
sear the chafed consciences of the recipients, and ren- 
der them more independent of their freed laborers. By 
their land monopoly they hold the rod of terror over 
them, ejecting them at pleasure. By their high tariff 
on the provisions, implements, lumber for building, 
&c, which the laborers chiefly need, they throw upon 
them nearly all the enormms expenses of the govern- 
ment, and determine whether they shall have houses to 
live in or no — or food to keep them from starving, ta- 
king care to hold them at the lowest living point. In 
order to reduce, by competition, their wages, they im- 
port coolies from the East Indies, who live upon almost 
nothing and go naked, subjecting these new comers to 
disabilities almost equivalent to chattelhood. Then 
come "vagrant laws-' to prevent the coolies and the 
negroes, landless as they mostly are, from changing 
their locations. And at length, the actual aid of the 
British Government is procured, to assist the planters 
in the importation of more coolies! The result is, that 
the emancipated negroes, rising so rapidly at first to the 
dignity of men, are again deeply depresssed, and a little 
more "tariff protection," at the good pleasure of the 
planters, either drives them from the Islands, if they 
can get away, or shuts them up to a starvation, at no 
distant day, and inevitable upon the slightest fai'ure of 
crops, equal to that of the poor Irish. Already the 
"failure of the West India experiment of negro free- 
dom" is chronicled upon the basis of statistics too ap- 1 
palling to be trifled with: — the sentiment gains curren- i 
cy — and their own petition for re-enslavement, in pro- | 
tection from s'arvation, becomes ma'ter of confident | 
prediction. Such is the picture presented to us. It may \ 
be overdrawn. Heaven giant it may be so. Hut it 
comes to us through the columns of the British and 
Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, with evident tokens of 
editorial alarm! Whatever the British and Foreign 
Anti-Slavery Society may have once thought of the 
" one idea " of security from chattel slavery, it evident- 
ly has no place, practically, in their creed, now. For 
a long time pasi, the spectacle, in them, has been wit- 
nessed, of an Anti -Slavery Society devoting its attention, 
its funds, its publications, its memorials to the cabinet, 
its petitions to the Queen and to Parliament, almost 
exclusively, to other topics than those connected with 
chattel slavery. Land monopolies, vagrant acts, low 
prices of free labor, excessive and fraudulent importa- 
tions of mor" laborers, and above all, iniquitous and 
murderous TARIFFS, these, with British abolitionists, 
are the topics of agitation, to-day, and the question is 
felt to be nothing less than whether or no, much, if 
anything, was gained by an act of emancipation that 
did not provide against land monopolies and tariffs. 
These are the facts. Letthose examine and ponder them 
■who will: — and having done so, let them shrink back 
again into their nut-shell contractions of the "one idea, " 
if it affords room for their accomodation, and if they 
can. Others may laud the immaecalate wisdom of Bri- 
tish abolitionists, and follow i» th« stepetboy h«r«b£aa 



compelled, with so much trepidation, to retrace. With- 
out reproaching them for not seeing what, to them \w 
yet unrevealed, we shall take care not to commit the 
same error over again, in the light of their dear-bought 
experience. To pay .€20,000,000 sterling, beside the 
costs of the public agitation, to buy oil the planter* 
from mere chattel enslavement, and yet leave them at 
liberty to accomplish very nearly all the ends of chattel- 
hood, by land monopolies and tariffs, was rather a hard 
bargain for honest John Bull. Brother Jonathan, it i~ 
to be hoped, will learn better than to be caught in fc 
similar trap. " Abstractionists," as we are thought to 
be, we shall try to be better "practical business men 53 
than to transact our business at such loose ends. If any- 
one still asks of us whether it would not be better to 
abolish chattel slavery first, and leave tariffs and land 
monopolies to be settled afterwards, we refer them to 
the "sober second thought" of our British brethren, 
whose sagacity is commended to us, for their delibera- 
tive answer. Bought wit may be peculiarly valuable, 
hut when already bought, at a vast price, before our 
own eyes, anil offered to us for nothing, it seems a prty 
to spurn it, for the sake of buying it over again. It is 
hard teaching mankind true wisdom, even by man's 
experience, and if our English friends really think they 
were sagacious, (or if any of the lookers-on imagine 
so,) in doing their work up in such a manner as to have 
it to do over again, we can only say, there is no dispu- 
ting with men's prejudices, any more than with their 
tastes. We shall venture to dissent. And, with all our 
supposed forgetfulness of the colored man, or under es- 
timate of the slave question, in our attention to "other 
matters," we hope to settle that question on a better 
basis, and provide for the colored man of this country 
a nobler freedom than the exchange of chattel slavery 
for the least eligible form of serfdom, which, instead 
of giving to the laborer, (as the feudal system did,) a 
sort of subordinate yet inalienable interest in the land, 
dis-severs him not only from the land, but from the 
means of possessing land, that wr t s!s even his slave-hut 
from him, and forbids, by means of tariffs, his construct- 
ing a hut of his own, that writes him landless and redu- 
ces his wages to the lowest point above absolute star- 
vation, and then fetters him with "vagrant acts," thus 
tempting him to sell back again, as a mockery, his birth- 
right of nominal freedom for the mess of pottage that 
might save his life! Our "one idea" runs somewhat 
beyond the glorification of ourselves as philanthropists 
for the merit of shutting up our colored brother to the 
wretchedness of such a condition, under the abused and 
misunderstood names of emancipation and freedom. We 
venture to be so "impracticable and visionary " as to 
insist that it is not so much the name, the shape, the 
hue, or the construction of the yoke or the manacle., 
that excites our mingled commiseration and abhorrence, 
as the fact that inalienable rights are cloven down, that 
humanity bleeds, that justice is trampled in the mire, 
that mercy is exiled from among men, that the civil 
government that should protect the defenceless is made 
the iron instrument of the devourer. It is not words 
we ask for, but things: — precious, solid benefits, for our 
abused brethren; — not the mere empty names of them. 
We dare not dismiss them with an idle " Be ye warmed, 
and be ye clothed '-" — nor ask them to cover their backs 
and fill their stomachs with the mere parchment of a 
nominal but deceptive emancipation. For such "ab- 
s'ractions" — abstruse as we are, wc have not yet formed 
the taste. Nor does our ha'red of chattelhood at all re- 
concile us to the alternative of seeing our brethren 
financially starved according to the methods of the latest 
and most fashionable school of "political economy." 

" TOO MANY OBJECTS AT A TIME." 
But to return to our argument. " Only a few will be 
found ready to unite on so many objects." How do 
you know that? When was the experiment tried? 
When was the question of abolishing all forms of op- 
pression ever distinctly propounded to a free people? 
By what political party and when? But another an- 
swer is at hand. "So many objects?" How many? 
What do we propose but the simple restoration and 
protection of human rights? Another answer still. 
How comes it to piss that it is difficult to unite large 
numbers in the impartial and equal administration 
of justice? Whose fault is it that, the number is so 
small? Rests there no responsibility on the promulga- 
tors of the miserable doctrine of the superior wisdom 
and merit of redressing only erne class of wrongs ami 
letting all the rest go unredressed? Suppose we try the 
eflbiU of a wore pMkwpMcaJ ana Chr'stian-likt 



10 



course of leaching, and then see what men will do. 
Still further. To say that only a few wiii unite in the 
equal administration of justice to all men, is but say- 
ing that only a few are prepared to do right— that moat 
men seek their own things, and not the things of others 
also — intoxicated and befooled wi=h the great and lor- i 
ever " impracticable" " one idea" of "taking care of 
number one,-" and of nuu.ber one's special favorites, 
whether white or colored, and letting every body else 
take care of themselves ! This is a manifest and flagrant ! 
evil — a prejudice — a sin! And how is it to be! 
cured? By the Colonizationist's medicine for color- 
phobia? By gratification and participation? By de- 
claring the prejudice forever invincible, even by j 
Christianity herself? By baptizing the "one idea" of 
partiality with the specious name of heavenly wisdom? i 
Is Leviathan to be thu3 tamed, and the world's wrongs 
thus righted? _ g I 

One answer more, forthe special benefit of "practi- | 
cal business men!'' Only a few, you say, will unite in j 
so ir,any measures of reform. Be it so. But how man)' | 
will unite steadily andperseveringly, in only anyone of; 
them? What says the history of this country?— the 
history of Great Britian?— the history of the world?. 
Our ""mechanics and working men" at various times j 
and under various names, have attempted to obtain aj 
redress of their oxen wrongs, taking special care not to j 
be so "visionary'' as to start a " crusade for universal 
reform;" particularly to broach nOthii g unpopular — to 
make no mention of slavery or of the colored man. j 
They have had conventions — organized parties— n, mi- , 
nated candidates; but how many ever joined them?j 
and what has been the result of their "one idea" saga- ] 
city? To ask the question is to answer it. What had j 
others to do with the mere business of the " mechanics 
and working men?" " Landless men," too, have had I 
their agitations — "free renters" — "free suffrage" men] 
— but kow many have ever enrolled under their banners? j 
"Anti-masons" with Weir "one idea"— what has be- j 
come of them? Last, not least, the Abolitionists— the I 
Liberty party — understood by the community, (not- j 
withstanding their early protestations) and at last un- 1 
derstood by perhaps a majopity of themselves, to be a 
party of the "one idea" of the colored man's emanci- 
pation from chattel slavery. Some said that the color- | 
ed man's right of suffrage "was not included in it. The ; 
people of Rhode Island learned, at least, that the white j 
man's right of suffrage was not. And have large num- ! 
bers joined the Abolitionists or the Liberty party? Is 
there the prospect of the speedy enrolment of the ma- 
jority of the people in a party of only one measure, 
and tha: measure touching, directly, only upon a mi- 
nority of the people? 

Anil how ha3 the one measure policy succeeded ■ 
elsewhere? The workings of it in England we have t 
seen. And what is the history of this wide world's 
perpetual oppressions, and unredressed wrongs? Is it 
not a history of the isolated, and hence ineffectual strug- 
gles of different clans and classes of men for redress? 
Was there ever a time when the united efforts of all 
whose rights were in any manner violated, in a parti- 
cular nation, might not have procured universal relief? 
Never! it may well be presumed. But general relief 
is nerer obtained. And why? For no other reason but 
because men's selfishness and narrow-mindedness pre- 
vents them from seeing that the violation of one man's 
rights is the violation, prospectively, of all men's 
rights. Each man, or narrow circle or class of men, 
adopts therefore, the very same sagacious "one idea"' 
thai is now commended to us, of minding only one 
class or description of rights, and letting all others 
take care of themselves! Each class or clan struggles 
on, by itself, and for itself, and never secures the com- 
mon sympathies of other classes otherwise wronged. 
Thus it is ever, that the crafty few are enabled to con- 
trol and oppress the dissevered and deluded many. 
Just 80 far as the narrow " one idea" of isolated, partial, 
specific opposition to particular forms and instancesof 
oppression and line is displaced by the all-compre- 
hensive, generalized idea of opposition to ALL Oppres- 
sion and crime of all forms, an I whoever may be the 
victim, just so far and qo farther, do barbarism, anar- 
chy and des] >tism give way to civilization, free gov- 
ernment, equal laws, and the general securiiy of all 
classes. And no ■ , i; wan ing, to com- 

plete the civilization, security, freedom, and < 

Of men BO 

, ■ 

but the o of the wretched po- 

licy Ol wrongs or 



oppressions by any other pro?p>s than that of redrew 
ing the wrongs of all the oppressed. 

Just so far, then, as any people are from being ready 
to co-operate in a political association for the correc- 
tion of all abuses in the government, for the repeal of 
all unjust laws, and for the equal and impartial protec- 
tion of ail men, just so far are they, of course, from 
being in a position in which tiie security of their rights 
can be possible. 

The number of men. more or less, that are. ready for 
such a co-operation, is the number of those who are in 
a position to maintain civil and religious freedom. 

It might be useful, just at this point, to ask the advo- 
cates of the "one" measure policy, what ultimate end 
is ;o be secured, even by the success, such as it would 
be, of carrying into effect, even if it could be done, the 
one measure they are so intent on securing as to waive 
every thing else, for the sake of it? Some of them 
wish to secure one measure — some are intent on anoth- 
er, and so on; while they are not prepared to unite on 
them all. Let us see how the policy works and to what 
it amounts. 

One little clique are intent on obtaining an abolition 
of the land monopoly. This is ffteir" one idea," and 
they will know nothing else. Who then are to co-ope- 
rate with them, and how is their point to be gained? 
But we waive this. Suppose, this obstacle overcome, 
and the measure secured — is the ultimate object gained? 
What was that object? What could it be? Anything 
short of security to civil and political freedom* with 
all the particular benefits of landholding? Nothing 
less. Weil then. You have your land. But the unlim- 
ited powerof tariff is over your heads, and whether you 
shall make the products of your land available, depends 
upon the goal pleasure of the tariff" mongers. Chattel 
slavery, too, is in the land, degrading free industry, 
and threatening to reduce all the laboring population to 
chattelhood. There is no security for liberty, here. 

Let us vary the supposition. Instead of the success 
of the land ag-itation we have the success of the free- 
traders, with the land monopoly and human chattelhood 
unchecked. Where are we then? We could sell the 
producs of lands, if v-e kad them, and until McDuffie 
chattelhood could lay hold of us. 

Vary the supposition again. Abolish chattel slavery 
and leave every thing else as it is. How much have 
we gained? The British West Indies tell the future 
story of our colored brethren. The condition of Eng- 
land, of Ireland, perhaps, or the map of continenial 
Eur, pe, might soon tell the story of the white northern 
man. 

PARTIAL REFORMS AGAIN. 

Or look into the movement of the reform car in En- 
gland — lumbering along, and dragging heavily, one 
wheel at a time. Free trade first — free suffrage next — 
then free religion. Suppose either one of those points 
gained, without the rest — where were civil and politi- 
cal liberty, then? 

If freedom — if security — if humanity — if justice — if 
mercy — be the grand objects to be secured, we gain 
little or nothing in the end by mere partial and disjoint- 
ed reforms. Yv'e only exchange evils, in many cases, or 
vary their names — or lay down an old, worn-out, in- 
efficient fetter, for a new and strong one. Likethefoxin 
the fable, we only get rid of one swarm of flies that 
another and a more hungry swarm may succeed, and 
drink the last drop of blood in our veins. This is sober 
history, and not fiction. The African slave trade had its 
origin in the mistaken "one idea" of the good Las 
Casas in attempting to relieve the native Charibs — and 
now the cooley immigration (heaven only knows its 
future results) comes in, in like manner, as the suc- 
scessor of negro chattelhood! A world's history of 
successive, ever changing, but never eradicated woe* 
and outrages, is one running commentary, written in 
human sweat, tears and blood, upon the shallow phi- 
losophy of redressing one wrong at a time, leaving 
other wrongs to grow up in their places by the time the 
old has disappeared. Nothing short of unceasing 
watchfulness against all the incipient encroachments of 
despotism, in all its Protean shapes and Chamelion hues, 
can ever [reserve, much less restore, the liberties of a 
people. What tyro in the school of politics has not 
learned by rote that time-tested maxim? And aie we 
now to be (rained, at tl licsofwitn- 

ttention of the ris.in< 

genert m all t: .• ten thousand devices and steal - 

thy inroads of arbi le? And that one, 

onglj entrenched behind the rest that not an 

■ .an reach it that it not sent through all of tl> 'm < 



11 



f 3 the ever wakeful anil inventive genius of aristocratic 
encroachment, crouching, spider-like, behind its ever 
weaving and changing webs of slimy deception and 
entanglement, to be even advertised before-hand that 
it is only against one particular and duly specified form 
and texture of his nets that we shall take any paias to 
arm and defend ourselves? — that it is not so much the 
letter itself that we abomina'e, as the mere name, color 
or shape of it?— that American freemen do not object 
:-o much, alter all, to a surreudry of their liberties, as 
to the terms, technicalities, and phrases in which the 
legal instrument of their degradation shall be couched? 
— "that the pilot that shall only steer our bark clear 
from the rock of Seylla, on tlie one hand, has our 
hearty leave to wreck it among the shoals of Charybdis. 
on the other? Is this the much-vaunted wisdom of 
'•'practical men," to which we are invited to listen? 
And can we, stumbling over the tomb-stones of all for- 
mer republics, thus eagerly and thus early bury our 
own in the same cemetery with them? What free 
nation ever los! its liberties but under the miserable 
delusion that there was only om source of danger, 
which, duly provided against, all would be safe? By 
what means were the liberties of a free people ever 
subverted, bu: tlm-e from which their eyes were thus 
averted, putting them off their guard? " Surely in vain 
is the net spread in the sight of any bird." The de- 
mon of despotism never asked more than that the eye 
of its intended victims should be diverted from any 
one of its ten thousand enianglements ! As the Arch 
Tempter was sure of his prey when he could but entrap 
our first parents into one transgression, so his bloody 
SWay over the political world is perpetuated from age 
to age bv the same device of gaining assent to but one 
form of oppression. One enemy admitted into the 
citadel (so Parley the Porter instructs even our chil- 
dren) all the rest arc addmitted by him at pleasure. 

But, amid all the hundred topics of political and 
legislative attention that press upon us, yearly, a polit- 
ical party, we are gravely told, can never master so 
many as the twenty that we have now presented to 
the public attention! A marvellous objection, .truly, in 
a country where hundreds of new enactments are 
passed, every year, and all of them supposed, to 
originate in the" popular will, and to repose upon its 
pleasure! The people are incapable, are they ? in such 
a country, to express their minds on twenty of the 
simplest and plainest of all political propositions, — 
unable to vote against twenty of the enormous legisla- 
tive abuses that have been fastened upon them? We 
shall see whether they are! If their representatives in 
the National and State Legislatures can unite in the 
support of slavery, pro-slavery wars, land monopolies, 
bank monopolies, monopolies of all sorts — tariffs — post 
office extortions — army and navy establishments, and so 
on, what hinders that the people should unite in letting 
them know what they think ot these wicked measures — 
these enormous exactions? » 

If a political party when in power, finds no difficulty 
in acting upon all these interminable and formidable 
twenty questions, and ten times twenty more on the 
top of them, what should hinder the party, if its leaders 
are honest men, from telling the people frankly before- 
hand, in respect to twenty prominent topics in which 
the first principles of civil government and the liberties 
of the people are vitally involved, what are their senti- 
ments and intentions? Is it thought most prudent for a 
political party to "keep dark," till after elec'ion, for 
fear the people should withhold their votes? Different 
politicians and different parties will answer this question 
in practice according to the objects they have in view. 
And whether the people will vote with a party that 
avov>s its objects, better than with one that conceals them, 
the event will prove, after the experiment has once 
been tried; and the result may depend very much upon 
whelher the party avowing its intentions, reveals, by 
its specifications, its honest and intelligent desire to 
relieve the oppressions and secure the liberties of the 
people. 

Nevertheless, it will be repeated that no party with 
twenty avowed objects inscribed on its banner, and 
Uteh radical ones too, ever yet did succeed. This is 
true: for no such party before ever existed. And 
another thing is also true. No political party in this 
country, nor in Great Britain, nor on the continent of 
Europe, that we know of, ever yet did succeed. What 
is "success? ' 

Whigs and Tories, Radicals and Chartists, Jacobins 
and Royalists, Federalists, Democrats, National Repub- 
licans and modern Whigs— which of them was ever yet 



known to succeed? And where are the monuments of 
their success? Each in turn has held the offices, and 
rioted upon the spoils. But is this to be called success? 
i Which of them have done up the proper icork o( a polit- 
; ical party? Which of them have executed justice — re- 
lieved the oppressed — anil secured the equal, inaliena- 
ble rights of the people? Success! Look at France, 
under the Bourbons— under the Revolutionists — under 
Napoleon — and airain under the Bourbons. Look at 
I England, under her successive | artizan administrations 
i — "one idea *' statesmen, ail of them— and what is their 
success? Ask famishing Ireland — and fettered Scotland, 
: and tithe-ridden England — ask groaning Manchester, 
; and fainting Birmingham— ask mocked and cheated 
| Jamaica and Antigua! Look at our own country, with 
its loud republican pretensions— with its unparalleled 
and gory despotisms!— its cotton-lords of the South— its 
I cotton-lords of the East — its bank-lords of the cities — 
its soil-lords of the interior, and of the far west, — the 
; slav e-driver"s lash over the whole, and the slave's chain 
i connecting them all! And this is the "SUCCESS"— 
] is it — of your sagacious political parties, with only 
i " one " item in their creeds! All because the people. 
; — the dear people — are incompetent to understand and 
! embrace more than one public measure at a time, or, at 
! best but two or three! High time were it for the peo- 
j pie to try what their capacities are — and whether the 
arithmetic, by which they examine the list of their 
\\ grievances, can enable them to master the enumeration 
of twenty items! High time were it for our wizard 
political economists, with their tables and statistics, 
; and "monthly prognostications,'' to stretch their math- 
| ematical powers, and see whether they can grapple 
| with the numeral tweniy. 

"DIVIDE AND CONQUER.'' 
And yet, the thrice-refuted fallacy, in a new guise, 
i re-appears again, and asks, as sanctimoniously as ever, 
j whether it is not the part of practical wisdom, to con- 
quer one enemy at a time. To '•'divide and conquer," 
i say our advisers, is ever the maxim of victors. Yes! 
i ot victors whose triumphs are over virtue and freedom, 
j but of none others. " Divide and conquer " is indeed 
I the successful stratagem of the Grand Usurper, and he 
! divides, that he may conquer his victims, by bidding 
! each little, feeble, isolated squad of them that he can 
j detach from their fellow-sufferers, persist in remain- 
i ing men of "one idea," and "take care of number 
one!" Thus he picks them up, one by one, and binds 
them fast in his toils. This "divide and conquer" 
I maxim belongs, and always is at home, on the side of 
the wrong-doer — the Destroyer! But when did ever 
the Great Deliverer and Redeemer of men bid his good 
soldiers "'divide and conquer" the powers of dark- 
ness, by warring with only one vice at a time? When 
did he ever set an example of such tactics? In what 
part of his manual of discipline do we find such a direc- 
tion? Whoever would wage war with human virtue 
and freedom must attack one detachment at a time, but 
whoever would assail human vices and despotisms must 
put on the whole armor, and give battle to the whole of 
them at once. 

"Divide and conquer" the elements of aristocracy, 
usurpation and oppression in our land? How are you 
going at work to divide them? You may point your 
guns at only one of them, if you please; but can you, 
by that process, divide the one from the other? Has 
not the experiment been sufficiently tried? Was not 
the Slave Power singled out fourteen years ago, as the 
distinct and sole object of attack? Did any of us then 
dream of the connection between it anil all the other 
aristocracies of the country, whether in Church or State, 
as that fact now stands revealed? But, was the first 
broadside poured into the enemy we had selected, with- 
out rousing instantly to its succor whatever in commer- 
cial, political and ecclesiastical life is susceptible of 
the most latent affinity to despotism? Have we not, to 
the present moment, with few excer*ions, persisted in 
the same poli. y of letting them all me, and concen- 
trating our forces against nothing but slavery itself? 
And what is the result? Have we divided and conquer- 
ed? Is there the least sign or prospect of a division be- 
tween the ^lave Power and the aristocracies support- 
ing it? Is not the alliance between them growing 
closer, and more systematic continually? Has there 
ever been a time in which all the minor aristocracies 
of the country were more efficient in the service of the 
Slave Power, more perfectly under its control, than at 
present? On this point, wc cite the t-- those 

among us who seem least inclined to give up the ex- 



12 



perimenl of an isolated warfare. Of them, we ask, • 
what is the present aspect of things in this respect? 
Let Lcavitfs veteran Emancipator tell the story of j 
New England's Webster traversing the whole South to j 
draw still closer the alliance between the Giant Aris- | 
tocracy of the country and one of the next powerful I 
one*:. And on whose errand has the mighty "expound- 
er" "-one that pilgrimage to the land of letters? Ask j 
the same truthful witness,, am! mark the response ! Has 
Massachusetts deputed her gifted Senator to bow down ; 
thus basely to The kidnapper of her free citizens— Ihe j 
expulsionist of her ambassadors, sent for redress? Mo! j 
For thus deposes the witness! Not Massachusetts, but 
her "cotton lords, 5 ' who appoint her Senators, and | 
who control them at pleasure, and see thai they do 
their royal bidding— the "cotton lords of Massachu- ! 
setts" have bound Massachusetts herself, and her once || 
free sons, hand and foot, and cast them, an ignoble of- j 
fering, at the feet of the Slave Power! It is thus that 
we "'divide 7 ' to conquer, under the workings of our;: 
« o-reat one idea,"— the « idea " of fighting: Hie Slave 
Power out of the reach of our rifles, with ourhandstied I 
by our own "cotton lords » in the employ of the Slave 
Power— pur "cotton lords'' with whom we are to j 
dwell amicably at home on our own soil, where we ;i 
might r, ach them if we would— but must not, because 
"the Liberty party was organized for only one distinct jj 
Object," and our "one idea" of fighting the Slave j 
Po'wer does not include the idea of breaking from our 
own wrists the green withes which our " cotton lords," j 
at the bidding of slavery, have seen fit to put upon our [ 
hands!— "our cotton lords" enthroned upon "THEjj 
TARIFF AS IT IS" which our "one idea" torbids us 
to disturb— nay, stranger still, impels us to support! If 
such be the wisdom of "practical business men, who 
take the world as it is," (aye, and leave it as they find 
it!) may we not venture, by way of experiment, to va- 
ry the monotony, bv trying the "impracticable abstrac- 
tionists," who are ""visionary" enough to believe in 
the connection between moral causes and their effects 
—the necessity of adhering to fundamental principles in 
order to secure beneficial practical results— who are 
"fanatical" enough to believe in moral and political 
science, and that no political action can be better than 
sheer quackery, that does not implicitly and undevia- 
tingly follow and reduce to universal practice, its foun- 
dation truths ? 

"Divide" the combined elements of aristocratic arro 
gance and misrule, as they are exhibited in the manifold 
monopolies and class legislations of this country, all in- 
stinctively and of absolute moral necessity clinging 
round the footstool of the Slave Power, as inseparable 
from it as the various organs of the human body are 
from the man himsell— wielded by it as surely and as in- 
stinctively as the heart sends out its supplies of blood, or as 
the nerves or muscles move the arms! Sooner think of 
"dividing" asunder the elements of the earth's atmos- 
phere, or separating the light of the sun from its warmth ! 
The thin™- cannot be. There is not an aristocratic ele- 
ment, arrangement, or organization in the land, that is 
not, in a sense, part and parcel of the slave system; Of 
this fact our -'one idea" brethren seem to be partly 
aware, when they tell us. us they sometimes do, that if 
chattel slavery were but first removed, all other usurpa- 
tions and abuses would fall to the ground. The " if" is 
the formidable 'part of 'the sfatement. The problem is. 
now to get at the citadel of slavery without disturbing its 
entrenchments. After all, it is not true that the removal 
of one abuse, even the greatest of them, ensures Ihe re- 
moval o! all the others. This we hate already shown, and 
when the effort is not directed to the overthrow of 
A i.j. , | , a new abuse, stepping into the place of 

the old. inherits its power. In all countries, some ONE 
i rnbrai within its folds all the mindr 
ones. In ours chattel slavery has the supremacy, and 
while it lites all the others are its subalterns. Every ef- 
e blow Btrack at cither of them, weakens all the 
rest, and a state of neutrality towards the subordinate dis- 
qualifies from : upon the centre. Common 
no less than sound philosophy and 

elhii fthefi llacy of attempting the 

fany great, s^ imi comprehensive form 

ippressions, whether few or many, con led with 

it. a political parly, commissioned to 
try, yet restricted 
by iis own terms of organization from abolishing the 
tariff from v Ry stem derives its rev e 

■ 
lOCracy and oppression wielded by it. must be in s> pn«>- 



tion like that of Shakspeare's Jew Shyloek, fully author- 
ized to cut out his pound of flesh, according to the bond, 
from any part of the body of the merchant of Venice be 
pleased*, but most rigorously prohibited, at the same 
time, under the severest penalties, from shedding a single 
drop of his blood! It is like an invading army, enter- 
ing the territory of the enemy, fully pledged to bear 
meekly in silence all the volleys of musketry or heavier 
ordnance that may be poured upon it from "minor" de- 
tachments, and mere allies of the hostile monarch, with- 
out returning upon them a single shot, until, in the use of 
these tactics, it can first reach the distant capital of the 
Emperor himself, and storm his imperial palace; fully 
consoled with the assurance that " if" the reigning mon- 
arch can thus be first captured, and the royal dynasty 
changed, all the remote portions of the empire and its 
minor forts and detachments will he conquered of course. 
When even " practical" men indulge in such day dreams 
and employ such rhetoric, it is lime to question whether 
wisdom shall die with them, and whether we may not, 
without arrogance, open our own eyes, and use our own 
intellects. And if we cannot make our minds to give bat- 
tle to as many as twenty confederated battallions, or fifty 
if need be, in order to accomplish our object — it might 
be as well to retire. To commence a campaign against 
an enemy of such varied resources, and numerous ano 
powerful allies, without counting the cost, and proportion- 
ing our efforts and plans to our task, is to invite speedy 
discomfiture and defeat. 

The policy we repudiate might have been pardonable, 
because plausible, at first sight, a few years ago, when we 
hoped to grapp'e at once and directly with the Slave 
Power, and decide the contest in a single battle — in our 
ignorance, at that time, of the extent of his territory and 
the amount and disposition of his forces. But since the 
ground has been surveyed, and we are acquainted with 
his fortified posts, it is worse than folly to persist in act- 
ing and arguing as though we were ignorant of the facts. 
We do know, we cannot help knowing, that all the aris- 
tocracies in the land are the strong holds of American 
Slavery ! How far short, (hen, is it, of treason to liberty 
and the sjave, to persist in our stupid neutrality in res- 
pect to them? When we put our finger upon its "bul- 
warks." whether in Church or State, and yet spare them, 
nay, even support and cling to them — is it not high time 
either to change our tactics, or relinquish our professions? 
And is it not time for us to speak out the whole truin 
plainly to one another and to the world? If Abolition- 
ists and if Liberty party men love their wool tariffs, their 
monopolies, their class legislations, their sects and their 
parties, too well to abandon them ifor the sake of liberty 
and the slave, let them frankly confess the fact and re- 
tire, leaving the tide of aristocratic encroachment to roll 
over them, and bequeathing golden fetters to their sons. 
But let them not think to win the inheritance of liberty 
without paying the just price — nor to repel Ihe insidious 
despot while drinking of his cups and fingering his 
bribes. And*let them not imagine that posterity and 
the world will be ignorant— though they may hide it from 
themselves — that they wanted (he magnanimity, the self- 
denial, the heroism, the consistency, the integrity, the 
singleness of purpose, to carry out successfully the noble 
pui poses they had conceived. 

Are we severe in saying this? How can we say less — 
at least to those among us who admit (and who can help 
knowing it?) that the Slave power entrenches itself in 
the strongholds we have designated, and yet refuse to as- 
sail him there? — that the objects we propose are righ? 
;.nd just in themselves, in accordance with the principles 
they have espoused, w ith natural and divinely established 
laws, and yet decline giving them their support? The 
class of persons now described (an:! it is a numerous 
one) cannot plead, whatever others do, (heir ignorance 
or their scruples, in respect to the justice of our cause, 

TIME FOB DEFINITIVE ACTION. 
To those who profess a full agreement with our views, 
o think the time for definitive action, in the pres- 
ent shape, has not yet arrived, we have a word further to 
say. If our principles are sound — if our measures grow- 
ing out Of them be just, when, if not now. is the time for 
reducing them to practice? Half the nation, perhaps, would 
admit them lo be right " iii the abstract." Is it not hold- 
e truth in unrighti •• do as they do? And 

. much should we differ from them, if we longer de- 
ferred? Have wc not given due retire two years ago, 
of our convictions and intentions? Have we not <t<m 

wc could while in that position, to disseminate our 

views? lr< ! tie long enough to reflect — to re -ex - 

to invite a discussion of our proposed measiu'ea — 



13 



to see if any good reasons could be produced against them |] ing slavery have been suggested, that some of them ought 
—to ask our associates to go along with us? If we Ion- ; to succeed. We offer you, in some particulars, anew 
ger deferred, how could we he true to our professions? |! platform, to-day. We do not lower down any of our 
To go into a Presidential nomination with those, a rna- j! anti-slavery demands. We repeat them still more dia- 
jority of whom wc knew were not prepared to take the I tinctly, and call for still stronger measures. We began 



only course that could satisfy our consciences, would be 
to give up our principles, to smother our convictions, 
to do violence to our sense of the right. Could we have 
gained access, with our views, to the entire Liberty Par- 
ty, through their presses, our position might have been 
different, but the discussion, to any extent, has not ap- 
peared in them. So far from being precipitate, we have 
erred in being too tardy. Considerable numbers, in oth- 
er Stales, who early espoused our views, have inferred, 
from our long waiting, that we had waived our scruples, 
and given up our measures. To defer longer would be 



with asking Congress to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia. We now demand its abolition throughout the 
United States, in conformity with the constitutional 
guaranty of a republican government to everv State in 
this Union! The demands of Abolitionists rise higher 
and higher, and must be trumpeted louder and louder, 
till the nuisance is abated. Of the abominations and 
cruelties of the system— of its daring impieties— of its 
encroachments upon republican liberty — of its heavy ex- 
actions mion the free State* — of its foul blot on our na- 
tional character— of its arrogant and insatiable demands- 



to justify such conclusions. The present state of all the | we cannot stop to speak on the present occasion, nor is it 
parties, the Liberty party in particular, indicates a crisis \ needful. The community at large are coming to under- 
admitting of no further delay. We have not moved with- I - stand all this, now, better than Abolitionists themselves 
out good counsel. The deliberate and truly sagacious, I did, when they commenced agitating the subject. _ The 
and ever trusty statesman, James G. Birney, was I North is brought to a position of reflection and dolibera- 
among the firs!, if not the very first, to surest the neces- !l tion. To tell you that your liberties are not safe while 
*ity of this present Convention, at this crisis. ; the slave system continues, is to tell you what most of yoti 

Whether few or many will go with us at present, we do ! ! already know. We have a right to take it for granted 
not stop to inquire. Very few were ready to go into a I that you have pondered these things. Let us inquire of 
Liberty party when the movement first commenced. We j j you, then, whether you are not ready to act, in some way 
know that large and increasing numbers sympathise more jj — and if so, whethe'rthe plan wc propose is not the right 
or leas with us, and are waiting for us to move. It will and the feasible one. 

be fo ind to be no local sentiment, and no temporary one. r While we do not lower down, but elevate our standard 
Wc have learned to estimate the value of political parties '! of anti-slavery political action, as hitherto urged by the 
less by their numbers, than by the purity of their inten- | : Liberty party* we take the additional and important step 
dons, the nobility of their objects, the soundness of their !i of defining our position, (in strict accordance with out- 
principles, the comprehensiveness yet discrimination of j principles! on all the prominent political questions of the 
their views, the deliberative wisdom and righteousness I day. We offer vou a connected and consistent system of 
of their measures, the inflexibility of their purpose, and i' political economy— of political action. Though we have 
the integrity of their action. Give us these, and we are ij said that we will not wait for numbers— that we value 
content. Give us seven thousand men in this great na- |! numbers less than tru'h and integrity— that a small party 
tion, who will hold up, by their votes and their teachings, I: adhering to the whole truth, is more powerful for good 
the great fundamental principles and objectsof civil gov- !; than a great party, affirming but half the truth, or ltsten- 
ernment, as God and nature have established them, and ; : itig to unrighteous compromise— we nevertheless earnest- 
we are fully persuaded that it will be the most powerful I ly solicit the co-operation of all men, in that which we 
political party in the nation or in the world. It will be J firmly believe to be in accordance with the right and the 
a great teacher of the long neglected but vitally impor- \\ true. And we cherish strong hopes that when our princi- 
tant sciences of civil government, of political morality, |j pies and measures come to be. understood, we shall be- 
of political economy. The growth of such a party might | come a party, strong in numbers as well as strong in the 
not be rapid, but it would be sound. It would insensibly I truth. Why'should it not be so? .Are we not in the 
mould other parties into an approximation towards its r midst of a republican people? Or have we mistaken tbe 
standard, not simply dor chiefly by the base motives of republican and progressive tendencies of the age? 
fear .and rivalry, but more'by the nobler force of con- I We count it no arrogance to say, then, that we offer 
scientious conviction. If it never elected a candidate (and j to you the privilege of co-operation in the only true, 



how many has the Liber, y parly elected?) its control 
over the other parties might abolish slavery and other 
monopolies. If the Liberty patty has done any thing 
(and who doubts it?) it has been chiefly in this way. 
When " Wrlmot provisos," and similar indications mark- 
ed the approach of the community at large to the Liber- 



thorough, consistent, whole souled and even footed demo- 
cratic party in the country, or in the world— the only 
party distinctly and definitely proposing, as a practical 
reality, the equal and impartial protection of the equal 
rights' of all men— the opponent of all oppression, the 
vindicator of all the wronged -.—the only party that is 

'slations and aris- 



(y party's actual standard, the true wisdom of that party i opposed to all the monopolies, class legis 

and its leaders would have been— instead of half inviting tooracies now existing or that may exist 

a compromise, dividing the difference between them — to II Tn asking you to assist us in vindicating the claims of 

have elevated and more clearly defined its own standard, i: the oppressed colored man, whose wrongs, being most 

in accordance with its professed principles — its early j! grievous, demand a commensurate prominence, we do 

promises, and the standard of immutable right. Had I not ask you to stand neutral or non-committal, in your 

she manifested the disposition to do this, this present i! political activity, and in your votes, in respect to the 

convention would not have been needed. As it is, what- I wrongs, greater or smaller, of any other class of men. 

ever the Liberty party may do, we must assume the re- ' We ask your sympathy with the colored man, not for his 

sponsibility for ourselves and for those who may co- I color, but because he "is a man, and your special sympa 

operate with us, of erecting that standard. Excelsior 

(higher— still higher} is our motto. We beckon not only 

the Liberty party, but the " Wilmot proviso" men, anil 

all other seekers after truth, to come up and stand with 

us on a higher, a broader, a firmer foundation. 

CONCLUSION. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS 01 THE UNITED STATES — ESPECI- 
ALLY OK the nom-slaveholding States :— We have 
shaped the preceding argument and appeal more directly 
for our coadjutors, hitherto, in the Liberty party, but we 
design it, substantially, for you all. We have no interest . 

distinct from yours— and, as already expressed, we seek '' Time, that tests all things, has sufficiently recorded these 
no other political object than the equal protection of the [i facts. 

equal rights of all. The greater pawt of you, hitherto, II Asa political party, we will hold no truce with a 
have inot co-operated in the measures we have employed, j Northern Aristocracy for the purpose of checkmating 
tor the removal of American slavery. But you, as well the Southern one. We will take no shelter under the 
as we, have been gaining important information within j wing of a Southern aristocracy, from the spreading 
the last four:een years, \ouhave disputed— and on vari- ij branches of a Northern on?. Whether they choose to 
ous grounds— the wisdom of our anti-slavery measures. \, measure swords with each other, as rivals, as they some- 
\\e claim not to have been infallible. This document |j times do— or mutually court and strengthen each olber, ai 
shows that we are not averse to making improvements ; at present inclining to do,— we will wage an uneompro- 
upon our plans of operation, when we can discover a i mising and exterminating warfare v^-iUi each, so long a; 
.good roason for so doing. So many measures for abolish- y either of them show their heads in the Seld, not forget- 



thy because his incomparable wrongs demand propor- 
tionate sympathy and aid. We commend to you no cuta- 
neous democracy, vociferous for the liberty of white 
men. and forging fetters for colored men. On the other 
hand, we ask not your cooperation in any Federal, or 
National Republican, or Whig party, the aristocratic in- 
stincts of whose leaders are best concealed or atoned for, 
by profuse professions of philanthropy for the colored 
man. In the hantls of such a democracy the liberties of 
the white man are not safer than thore of the colored 
man. In the hands of their antagonists, of various names, 
the liberties of the colored man are equally insecure. 



14 



ting to watch afler them, if they retire. So far from 
dreading their open alliance with each other, and there- 
fore attempting to conciliate, or avoid provoking either, 
we hurl open defiance at both of them — " the cotton 
lords" of the South, " the cotton lords of the North, " and 
all the other incipient aristocracies of the country, few 
in numbers as we now are, nothing doubting and most 
earnestly desiring their visible and organized co-opera- 
tion together, at no distant day. When all the elements 
of aristocracy on the one hand, and of true democracy 
on the other, shall thus find their latent affinities and mar- 
shal their forces, we shall have " an open field and fair 
play,-' and we ask nothing more. Instead of staving oil 
the crisis, we will hasten it, if w _ e can. 

To those of our fellow-citizens who seek the redress 
of specific wrongs, we offer co-oneration, on the basis 
we have laid down. Our assistance they have, of course, 
in the very principles of action we have espoused. To 
avail themselves of our aid, they have only to follow the 
golden rule of doing to others as they would have others 
do to them — protecting other men's rights, as they would 
have other men to protect theirs. 

And — let us be distinctly understood. To no men, or 
class of men, upon any unprincipled basis of " log roll- 
ing," have we any offers to make — nor can we receive 
any. But to all men, and to all classes of men, who have 
any real wrongs to be redressed, or threatened rights to 
be secured, we tender, now, and henceforward, what ver 
of open handed anil honest aid we can impart. \V eask 
not who they are that are wronged — how few, how mny 
— how popular, how unpopular — how rich, how pooa — 
how black, how white — how orthodox, how heterodox 
— whether they vote with our party or vote against it, 
or not at all. but simply tchethcr they are WRONGED, what 
redress justice requires— what security the case needs. 



Are we taunted with our tioenty proposed measures — 
mistaken for so many items of our one creed of equal 
rights? We answer, we are ready to swell the twenty 
to two hundred, whenever so many forms of oppression 
: may need redress— equally ready to reduce them to two, 
i or to none at ail, when the occasion shall cease. Show 
! us, at any time, which of our measures is wrong, and we 
will abandon it. Show us any other measure that justice 
requires, and we will add it. We trust to our immuta- 
ble principles to give us stability, by our adherence 
to them. The ever onward occurrences and exigencies 
of human society, upon which our principles of equality 
and rectitude are to operate, will furnish us with all we 
want, of adaptation and progress. 

With this statement — fellow citizens— of our princi- 
ples — our measures and our objects, we invite your co- 
operation. Having organized with a view to the benefit 
of all, we ask for the assistance of all. Even those whose 
present course and position obliges us to oppose ihem, 
have no other security for their own rights, for the rights 
of their children, than the establishment and perpetuity 
of a just government. Our opposition to their Pleasures 
involves no hostility to their persons. As a party for the 
whole, we seek to become the party of the whole— to 
merge all party in tie common support by all, of the 
rights of all:— that each may feel himself secure because 
he sees all others secure. 

If any _ rther exposition of our principles and our views 
of national policy are needed, we can furnish it in the 
announcementof the names of the candidates we have se- 
lected to stand at the head of the Federal Government. 
We nominate GERRIT SMITH, of the State of New - 
York, for President, and ELIHU RURRITT, of Massa- 
chusetts, for Vice President, of the United States. 



GERRIT SMITH AND THE PRESIDENCY. 



Peterboro, May 8, 1847. 
To the Albany Patriot: 

I am receiving letter?, which ask me to consent to he 
a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Li- 
berty party newspapers are canvassing my merits for the 
office. From all directions, I am remonstrated with for 
declining to take civil office. 

To save my own time, and the time of others, let me 
say in this public manner, once for all, that I have never 
held office: have never been in circumstances to, hold it : 
and am not now in circumstances to hold it. 

A few words ol explanation may have the effect to cor- 
rect and prevent misapprehensions; and to shelter me 
from the charge of being unreasonable, self-indulgent, 
stubborn, in my unwillingness to take office. 

I had scarcely come to manhood, ere the care of my 
father's very large land, d property devolved on me. 
Much still remains for me to do, before I shall be entire 
ly released from this burden; and, if ever I shall be in 
circumstances to take office, it will not be until afler such 
release. Moreover, I am not, and it is, now. too late for 
me ever to be qualified for the post of a statesman. So 
absorbed have i been with the cares of property, and so 
seldom have my thoughts been allowed to travel beyon I 
the range of these cares, that the information, which 1 
have picked up, is quite too scanty and piecemeal to serve 
me in situations, which call for the systematic studies and 
extensive knowledge of the statesman. Again, I have, 
the present spring, f( mpleted the fiftieth year of my life. 
Hence, my habits — the habits of a private ami quite se- 
cluded life — are too fixed to make it easy, or perhaps 
even possible, so far to overcome their repugnance to 
public life, as to admit of my being at all contented, or 
at all useful in it. 

1 need '-ay no more to justify my conclusion, that it is 
not my duly to <ro into public life. Were I, however, 
qualified for the chief magistracy of the nation; and 
were I the only person, in whose nomination to it. the 
friends of freedom could agree; I admit, that the Liberty 
party, my circumstances <■ the contrary notwithstanding, 
would be guilty, neither of great unreasonableness, nor 
of great unkindness, should it make me its candidate. 
But, inasmuch, as these suppositions are not founded in 
truth— inasmuch, as l am no! rU for the office, and inas- 
much as the Libei ly party can unite upon any one of the 
dozen noble men, who are fit for it— il follows, that it 



would be neither kindness to myself, nor justice and ad- 
vantage to its cause, for the Libeity party to put me in 
nomination. Perhaps, however, there are persons who, 
notwithstanding what I have here written, will think, 
that I should be the Liberty party candidate fcr the pre- 
sidency. Some of them may say, that my nomination, 
since it would not result in my getting one vote in thirty, 
much less in my election, would be a mere matter of 
form, and liable to none of my objections to taking office. 
My reply to them would be, that a person^has no rigm 
lo accept a nomination to office, unless he is willing to 
accept the office also; for, in the most improbable case, 
the nomination may, possibly, result, in election. Others 
of them may say, that the reasons which I avow for de- 
clining the nornina'ion in question, are insufficient. But, 
if, in addition to these reasons, it should be foreseen, that 
a considerable share of the members of the Liberty party- 
would refuse to vote for me, who of its members would, 
in such case, desire my nomination? Now there is no 
doubt, that many of (his party would strenuously oppose 
my nomination, were they to know to what uses I would, 
il elected, put the office, and the influence Of (he office, 
of President of the United States. Candor requires me 
to acknowledge some ol the offensive things, which 1 
would do j or attempt to do, were I, this day, made Presi- 
dent of the United States. Happily, all these things arc 
not offensive to the Liberty parly. Happily, a conside- 
rable portion of it agrees with me in all these things. 
Happily, loo, one or two of these things are welcome to 
a majority of the American people. Nevertheless, to 
every one of (hem there is determined and implacable 
opposition. When 1 shall have acknowledged what 
these offensive things arc even those members of the Li- 
berty party, who arc now most partial to my nomination, 
will no longer urge !he expediency of making it. 

l<t. 1 would, so fjras 1 had the power, put an imme- 
diate end to our war with Mexico. This is the most di- 
abolical o! all ware. It i>a waragainsl a weak, ignorant, 
distracted, unoffending people, whom it is the bj •• 
duty of this nation to help and cherish — not to crush ami 
destroy. It is, moreover, ;< war, springing, directly and 
confessedly, from our national policy of extending sla- 
very. I would have the American people fall upon their 
knees to seek from i'<od and from Mexico, forgivenesi 
for murdering her men, women and children. 1 would 
have them amp!} ." • . • • IcO for their destnn. - 



15 



drinking-houses and dram-shops, harmless. All govern- 
ments owe it to their subjects to protect them fnmje 
wide- spread wretchedness and unutterable nun inflicted 
bv drinking-houses and dram-shops;— and republican go- 
vernments must, as they would protect themselves— as 
thev would save their very existence, suppress these nui- 
sances. A despotic government may exist, notwithstand- 
ing the prevalence of drunkenness among its subjects. 
It may, even, be the safer, the greater such prevalence. 

I But, it is not so with a republic. That falls, as its subject* 
fall from virtue and sobriety. The people of tins land 

1 are not permitted to choose Rum and a Republic. 1 hen 

^would t \\ ^in t^Jft**£!^ are aware, the_super- 



tion of her property. 1 would have them take none of 
her territory, unless obtained by fair purchase and free 
cession. Texas, of which we so basely and lyingly rob- 
bed Mexico, I would have returned to her, or her puce 
for it fully and cheerfully paid . 

2d. I would have our army, navy, and whole military 
system, broken up; and, by an example, so impressive 
and controlling, have all nations persuaded, that it is high 
time for men to cease to be wolves and tigers; and high 
lime for them to spread over this blood-stained earth the 
peace of Heaven, in exchange for the wars of hell. 

3d. I would have ail restrictions on commercial inter- 
course abolished 
their tendency to enrich and strengthen us 



enough to determine my <luty in respect to them, to ,; vUjorjnd th« ; justice sof the ^--omp^t^board^ 
know, that they alienate nation from nation; break up M 
the oneness of the human family; and make enemies and 
strangers to each other of those, who should recognize 
friends and brothers in each other. 

4th. I would have the government sustained oy direct 
taxation : for, never, shall we have either an honest or a 
frugal government, until its expenditures are drawn di- 
rectly from the pockets of the people. Our P 1 "^^^! 
would never have be 
make direct payment 
port, government by a - 

rich, at the expense of wronging and oppressing the ; to use a low Phrase, belontrs to a secret so - 
poor'. I close, under this head, with the remark, that the ||c f lly true ^^S^£SJSSPlS^ "^ 



i never voted for a person for supervisor or for justice ot 
I the peace, without first ascertaining, that he was opposed 
> to licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks. 
' 13th. There are many wise and good men in secret so- 
cieties. I should be sorry to refuse them office. Once, 
I would not have done so. But now 1 would. Conceal- 
ment and darkness are congenial to a despotic govern- 



motive for continuing American slavery would be much 
weakened by the substitution of direct for indirect taxa- j 
tion. 

5th. Instead of the yearly and wicked waste of many | 
millions upon fortifications, vessels of war. and other ; 
means of human slaughter, I would have government | 
make the most liberal expenditures on light-houses, har- 
bors, navigable streams, and. in all other constitutional 
ways for protecting life, and promoting the interests of ' 
commerce. 

6th. Although opposed to wars, I would have govern- 
ment prompt to put down and punish mobs and msurrec- j 
tions. In those cases, where the insurrections consist in j 
the rising of oppressors to. conquer the every -where j 
rightful attempt of the oppressed to regain their liberty, i 
I would have the punishment of the insurgents so signal j 
and effectual, that, instead of being disposed to repeat 
their crime, they would Be glad to let the oppressed go 
free. I 

7th. The guaranties for slavery in the federal Consti- 
tution, which are so much talked of, I do not see. In; 
my eye, that instrument is clearly anti-slaverjjg and I j 
would have it brought into the widest, sternest, *adfiest ! 
war against slavery. 

8th. Land monopoly, whether on the part of the go- 
vernment or of individuals, I would disfavor. ' Hence, r 
would have the public, lands thrown open to actual set- • 
tiers, free of cost. I would add, under this head, that 



dark." Y^e cannot know him. We cannot determine, 
whether he is for or against us— for or against the inte- 
rests of his nation and his race— for we are ignorant to 
what the oaths of his secret society have bound him. 

Finally, were I President of the United States, I woulu 
act upon the Dever-to-be-shaken conviction, that '-right- 
eousness exalteth A nation;" and that this nation, 
now in a '•' galloping consumption," because of its un- 
righteousness, can be saved only by its speedy return to 
righteousness. The profane, unprincipled, and rase, l 
would, therefore, to my utmost ability, thrust out, anU 
keep out, of places of power and trust. 

May God hasten that truly "good time," when the 
chief magistrate of every nation shall have a heart to 
say, in the words of the chief magistrate of Israel: 

«• I WILL NOT KNOW A WICKED PERSON. MlNE EYE 
SHALL BE UPON THE FAITHFUL OF THE LAND, THAT 
THEY MAY DWELL WITH ME; HE THAT WALKETH IN 
A PERFECT WAY, HE SHALL ^HK^ ^^ 



Peterbcrc, July 3d, 1847 

To the Editor of the Liberty Press: 
On the rierht hand and on the left, I am urgeu 

■ ., _ _? :__.: >i ...lit .«k.7nl, (Vio \I-»."»< 



cline the nominatiM, 
vention has h'onoreu i 



to de- 
wilh wb-fch the Macedon Con- 
nie. Can" you inform me what are 



every man's home should be inalienable, except with his !.j the specific things which they, who thus urge roe, would 
own consent. _ "'j have me do? • • , , 

flth. I would have no sympathy with the policy, which . ; ls t« Am j t sg ^ ? that people sh'ajl not vote lor me. 
would exclude foreign-born citizens from the baliot-box, j ! g ut wou u not pedpje be very apt to do as they please, 
for I hold political rights to be natural and absolute rights. | eVen though I should be arrogant and haughty enough 
I admit, that our foreign-born citizens generally vote U t0 ^.^ tbafthey sh3lV,not ? . . 

wrong. This, however, is the effect of bad example, j Od. Am I to say, that I disapprove of the nomination. 
Did our native-born citizens vote right, the foreigners, i g ut \ S3iU \ so j n advance of th^e nomination, and of the 
who make our country their home, would also vote right. ■. I holding of the Convention— said so, most emphatically- 
Had our native-born -citizens voted for " Birney the jLa n a ye t, it availed" nothinsr. The Convention were fully 
Just," instead of for man-thieves, our foreign-born citi- j i awarc ^)f my strong dislike fo taking civil office. More- 
zens would have done likewise. |[ over, the causes of this dislike, and my reasons why they 

10th. I would regard no man as ft' to hold office under- i should *not put me in nomination, were spread out in 
a republican government, who is so ignorant, or ar> con- \\ p V j n ted detail before them. Nevertheless, they put me 
temptuous of the great distinctive fundamental principle ;; j n nomination; and, in doing so, took upon themselves 
of such government, as to make a man's right to vote turn • I G ^, an j ] e ft*upon' me none, of Lhe responsibility and 
on the amount or kind of his property, or on the coif r of jl D i ame f wn at they did. . 

his skin. T 3d. Am I to say. that, if elected, I would not accept 

11th. I would give office to a slaveholder, no sooner I the office? But, this I cannot say: for. I would acceP^' 
than to any other pirate. Again. I would give office to i No objections on the score of tastes and nanus MP"- 
the person, who would give office to a slaveholder no ; j vate considerations.whatever— would induce meiouie- 
sooner than I would give it to tiie person, who would | j go such an opportunity to promote tl: 
give it to any other pirate. Slaveholding would soon 



cease to be reputable— would soon cease to be— were 
slaveholders excluded from civil office. It is no wonder, 
that it is now reputable. Were we to make civil rulers 
of sheep-thieves and horse -thieves, as freely as we do of 
man-thieves, sheep-stealing and horse-stealing would be 
as refutable among us, as^nan- stealing. 

12th. I would give office to nc*persons, who are in favor 
of licensing the traffic in intoxicating drinks. I would 
sooner consent to gi$$ it to persons, who_ are in favor of 
licensin 
houses 



the good of" my fellow men. -It was not, however, for 
the purpose of electing me, that I was put in nomination. 
The party which put me in nomination, will, doubtless, 
•xceed its'highest anticipations of its*growing numbers, 
1f, among the millions of votes cast for President, it shalJ 
beableio cast twenty, "or even ten thousand. 

4th. Am I to scorn the nomination, because it was not 
a Convention of the Liberty parly from which it oamei 
But that would be*% piece of unreasonableness, mtoie- 



, and littleness, of which I could not permit myselt 
sing gaming-houses and brothels; for the gaming- lUo be guilty. A member of the Liberty party ^ ou ™ 
es and brothels of a country are, cor th its j welcome, and, if he have the soul of his nign calling 



u 



will welcome, a nomi nation at the hands of any other 
party more than at the hands of his own. If allowed to 
see even the Whigs and Democrats take their candidates 
from his party, he should and will rejoice with all his 
heart- 

5th. Am I to turn contemptuously from the nomina- 
tion, because the new party, which gave it to me, is 
made up, in part, of seceders from the Liberty party? I 
answer, that members of the Liberty party have the right 
<!o withdraw from it — as good right as the members of 
other parties have to withdraw from their parties; and, 
that I trust, there is no element of tyranuy or popery in 
ihe Liberty party to forbid the exercise of thi3 right. 
Emphatically true is it, that members of a party have 
the right to secede from it, when the object of the se- 
cession is to form a better party than that they left. Now, 
much as I love the Liberty party, and tenaciously as 1 
cling to it, I am obliged to confess, that the "Liberty 
League" is a better one; and that it is your and my duty 
to labor to bring up the Liberty parly to the high, every- 
where open, and honorable ground occupied by this new- 
party. To imitate this new party— not to disparage and 
condemn it — is the appropriate work of the Liberty par- 
ty. And such is my persuasion of the discernment and 
integrity of the Liberty party, that, I believe, it will 
promptly enter upon this work — will promptly yield to 
the demands of developing truth. By so doing, it will 
effectually call back those, who have left it; and they will 
•eturn, accompanied by thousands of anti -slavery free- 
trade men, peace men, land reformers, &c, wlio will 
precede, by only a little space, tens, and, perhaps, hun- 
dreds of thousands of persons of like faith. The Liberty 
party, if it shall be so true to itself, as to carry out, in all 
justly called for directions, its great one idea of the equal 
rights of all men, will be no loser, but on the contrary, 
a great gainer by the organization of the Liberty League. 
Thus true to itself, it would quickly absorb this bold and 
honest little pioneer. Thus true to itself, the nomina- 
tions made by the Liberty League would get no votes; 
and those to be made by the Liberty party would get 
double the number of votes ever yet obtained by Liberty- 
party candidates. The Liberty party has the power to 
turn to its own candidates every vote which now tends 
to Elihu Burritt and myself. Happy, thrice happy, if it 
-tfiall be so wise, as to avail itself of this power. Even 
Brother Burritt and i, clean shorn of our honors, as we 
should thereby be, would, nevertheless, be quite too joy- 
ful in the cause of our loss, to make the loss itself the 
subject of very deep or protracted sorrows. 

But, I shall be told, that the Liberty parly wa3 organi- [ 



zed for only one purpose — that of contributing to over - 
throw chattel slavery. I admit it. I always contend for 
this interpretation. At the same time, I yield to the 
claims of candor, and admit, that they, who take opposite 
ground, find no little authority for it in seveial, and 
among them, the earliest National Conventions of the 
Liberty party. I admit, I say, that the Liberty party was 
organized for nothing else than to war on chattel slavery. 
It is, however, but justice to me, for those, who quote 
this admission, to couple with it, as I so frequently do, 
the declaration, that the principle, in the light of which 
the Liberty party was organized, and by the force of 
which it undertook to accomplish its object, is the 
equal rights of ail men. But who can doubt, that 
this principle points to free trade, land limitation, &c, 
&c, as well as to exemption from chattel slavery? And 
why should not the Liberty party follow all these point- 
ings? There was reason why it should not, so long as it 
regarded itself as a temporary party, and believed that, 
ere long, the great political parties would supersede it 
by inscribing the abolition of chattel slavery upon their 
banners. But, for years now, the Liberty parly has seen, 
that these parlies arc past all cure, all hope, and that it 
mc! regard itself as a permanent party. How then can 
it act rationally, whilst it fails to qualify itself for the in- 
telligent administration of government, and the proper 
discharge of all the duties of government? And how can H 
become thus qualified, if it refuse to give its attention to, 
and to pass upon the merits of the various interests which 
either come within, or seek to come within, the circle of 
governmental care? 

That the equal rijhts of all men has, from the first, been 
the avowed principle of action of the Liberty party, is not 
to be denied. This is its standing boast. This is ex- 
pressed in its addresses and resolutions, and newspapers, 
every year and every month. This is not the principle 
of action with British Abolitionis'.s. But, it is with 
American. British Abolitionists can cherish some forms 
of oppression, whilst they war upon others — can deliver 
some victims of oppression, and be pitiless toward 
others. But American Abolitionists go for abolishing all 
the forms and delivering all the subjects of oppression. 

A word for those, who think, that the Liberty party 
should never change its action, and I have done. The 
party, which refuses to respecUhe changes in its circum- 
stances, anil to obey the law oTp*rogress, may exoel all 
other parties in pride of consistency and in stupidity — but 
it will excel them in nothing more valuable. 

GERIUT SMITH, 



FOR GRATU1TQUS DISTRIBUTION.— Prick, $2 per Hundred. 



W46 




•- +*« .6? 




/ V^V %'*&\* V ; --v 



■fr***' 








:• ^ ^ /aVav >. ^ .ysfcr. ^ a* a 



*%># 



W 



<* *•'.'»* <G V *o *^T* A <* 'i-.l* <G V V ♦.r^T*' A 



v-cv 



*by 



•*<? 



r ..*»•« 



r oK 




■ \/ :&&* %^ :Mfa: V^ .*£&-. 






~<* '^^ 



V-0* 
^°** 



y.-i&*.°- X.s^A y.-^A ./ •• 







^bf :£Ht%fc' '*++#' -v* 




r oV 





» • ill/* ^ 







^o< 



,-f 



•iq. 



vV 



'. -ov* :«s.*- ♦ao'* • 



















* /o.V'""'/ 






lift %^ :'A\ V* •' JH": *W* :'ife ^/ •') 












:: 






















